The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was advised on Friday last by the Business Office that my question for oral answer today, No 7, to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been ruled inadmissible under sub judice rules. Will you advise Members if the issue of sub judice was raised by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or by your office?

Mr Speaker: It may be unreasonable to expect the Business Office to keep itself fully aware of all legal cases on which a question might be put. On this occasion the question was forwarded in the usual way. We were advised by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that an appeal had been lodged and the question arose as to whether this rendered the matter sub judice. The Clerks looked at that question and at the relevant Standing Order. Standing Order 68(4)(a) states
"in the case of courts of law, when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgement given, but resumed when notice of appeal is given until the appeal has been decided;"
In other words, the sub judice rule applies until a verdict has been announced or judgement given. However, once notice of appeal is given, the sub judice rule applies again.
I asked the Business Office to seek advice in writing from the Court of Appeal on whether that was now the case. We received a written note from the Court of Appeal to the effect that the appeals have been lodged and will shortly be listed for hearing. That means that until those appeals are dealt with, these matters fall under the sub judice rule again. As soon as judgement is given by the Court of Appeal, that will cease to be the case. However, if the right of appeal to the House of Lords is upheld, the sub judice rule will apply again until such time as the appeal is dealt with, when it will no longer apply. I trust that clarifies the matter.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of some importance to the House. I tabled the question because I am finding it virtually impossible to get a response from the Executive on this matter. All of the civil servants were put out of the room the last time the Executive dealt with this matter so there was no independent record of what happened.
Taking the subjudice rule into account, how can Members establish what action was taken by the Executive when there were no officials present to record the minutes? Very shortly we will be dealing with the North/South Ministerial Council report from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. If a Member were to ask a question about how the unlawful activity of David Trimble is impacting on the the work of the Council, will that be viewed as sub judice and, therefore, inadmissible?

Mr Speaker: It is not uncommon — although never having been a participant I do not know from first-hand experience — for Executives in various Governments to meet on occasion without officials being present. The opportunity to question Ministers directly is always there except when a matter falls under the sub judice rule. The period of time — and I have no idea what length it was — from the judgement having been given in the case to the point where an appeal was lodged was a window of opportunity for a question to be asked. I do not know whether it was a practical opportunity to engage in a question. Such a window of opportunity will appear again subsequent to an appeal, the ruling having been given.
There are not many precedents in this matter, because it is not particularly common for Ministers in a Government to take other Ministers to court. We have to operate from first principles, and the principle of sub judice applies. The fact that civil servants are not present in the meeting does not mean that questions cannot be responded to. Sometimes such meetings are not regarded as formal meetings. However, the context in which those individuals were meeting is entirely a matter for the Executive and not for me. The sub judice rule applies at this juncture in respect of the matter which has been taken to court in two cases which are now under appeal.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a final point of order, Mr Speaker. This is relevant to the ability of a Member to raise any question of any Minister coming forward with a report on the North/South Ministerial Council. If I were to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development a question about the negative impact of David Trimble’s unlawful activity, for example, would that be ruled out of order?

Mr Speaker: I will have to consider that matter, because that was not the question that I had to consider at the time. The question I had to consider at that time was whether the specific question, which related directly to the appeal, was sub judice. I will take your question and think about it with regard to the business of Ministers at Council meetings. There is no problem with asking questions about that. However, I will need to give some consideration to the question relating to whether there has been adverse consequence before giving a reply to the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You said that Members had the opportunity to question Ministers at any time. Surely Ministers here have hidden behind what they call "confidentiality". Therefore, if the matter is not in the public domain we have no opportunity, at any time, to question them.

Mr Speaker: As I have said on previous occasions — and the Member will know from other experience — the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister here or elsewhere is not a guarantee of an answer from a Minister.
I am simply stating the obvious. There are Question Times, and there are opportunities to ask questions. Of course, it is difficult to ask questions about things of which one does not know, but Members frequently get a hint of something which they are not "behind the door" in asking a question about.

Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission: North/South Ministerial Council

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector held on Friday 6 April in Dublin.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector took place on Friday 6 April in Dublin. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Sam Foster and I represented Northern Ireland. Mr Frank Fahey TD, Minister of the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government. The Executive Committee noted the papers for the Council meeting during the week commencing 2 April.
The meeting opened with updates from the chairman of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), Mr Peter Savage, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derick Anderson. The chairman informed the Council of the contributions made by the agency and local angling clubs to curb the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. During the crisis the agency has not been issuing angling permits to fish in its waters and has curtailed its enforcement activities to boat patrols on the loughs and rivers. Agency staff have complied fully with disinfection procedures where they have had to address pollution or water quality issues. Anglers in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have been very co-operative and responsible in their attitudes during the crisis. I was very reassured by these remarks.
The chairman also advised us of a visit by a party of shellfishermen from the Foyle and Carlingford areas to Tralee and Clew Bays to observe the operation of shellfisheries there. This visit took place prior to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and the shellfishermen were accompanied on the trip by members of the FCILC board’s shellfisheries subcommittee, representatives of the cross-border Aquaculture Initiative team and a number of Loughs Agency staff. The visit proved to be a very useful learning exercise and provided a good opportunity for a range of interests to begin the process of co-operation that will result in more productive and better managed shellfisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas in the long term. Further, he advised that the Loughs Agency’s regional office in Carlingford is now fully staffed and operational, and that a marine tourism officer has been appointed to begin work on drawing up a strategy on marine tourism for the Foyle and Carlingford areas.
The chief executive explained the further work undertaken by the agency — building on what was learnt from the trip to Tralee and Clew Bays — to ensure that all views on the development and management of shellfisheries are taken into account in setting up a regime that will lead to the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry in both loughs, and one that has the consensus of as many stakeholders as possible.
The chief executive also gave a report on fishing effort and the continued work in relation to poaching and pollution, and he further updated the meeting on plans concerning marine tourism. Although it is still early days, the agency is keen to develop a strategy that clearly defines its role, that sets the strategy firmly in the context of the various forms of fishing and that builds in support for the provision of the information, accommodation and services required to support and encourage fisheries-based tourism. It also aims to extend the strategy to cover other water-based tourist activities such as canoeing and mammal watching or birdwatching. I am, therefore, content that there is a heavy agenda of good work being progressed by the agency.
Following the updates, a presentation was made to the Council on the agency’s detailed plans for selecting and appointing members to the advisory forum and focus groups which the Council agreed should be established at its meeting in November 2000. It is intended that the focus groups will represent the interests of a wide range of stakeholders in the loughs, including shellfishermen, nets-men, conservation interests and tourist representatives, to name but a few. The agency is keen to ensure that appointments to these bodies are made independently of the agency. To ensure this, independent consultants have been appointed to undertake the process of selection and appointment. The agency aims to have active groups by the end of this summer. The Council approved the agency’s forwarding its draft equality scheme to the Equality Commission. I am satisfied that the agency has consulted widely in drawing up the scheme and that it has taken on board the outcome of this extensive consultation.
The Council approved a proposal by the agency that a review of the grading and salary of field staff posts be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The agency has encountered difficulties in attracting and retaining such staff, due to unfavourable salary differentials between its posts and those of comparable organisations in the rest of the island of Ireland.
We also approved a proposal to defer an overall review of the staffing structure of the agency for six months to allow sufficient time for it to acquire the aquaculture licensing function and to develop its strategy on marine tourism. The Council approved the making of three sets of regulations. These were, first, regulations on salmon carcass tagging to introduce a tagging and log book scheme for all salmon and sea trout over 50 cms. The introduction of the scheme will enhance conservation measures already in operation as well as provide the agency with more accurate information on catch data to facilitate better management of stocks in the areas. The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources introduced a similar scheme from 1 January 2001 for sectors other than the Foyle and Carlingford areas. I understand that the Fisheries Conservancy Board plans to introduce this scheme throughout the rest of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, regulations are being put in place to lift a ban on angling on a stretch of the RiverFoyle. The ban was introduced in 1999 to prevent illegal netting on a heavily poached stretch of the river and will be unnecessary when the tagging scheme comes in. This will extend the section closed to angling on the River Mourne to prevent excessive exploitation of salmon and sea trout in an area where there is a natural obstacle to migration.
Thirdly, the Council made regulations to extend the provision in relation to the close season in the Carlingford area — the periods when the waters are closed to angling to protect salmon and trout while spawning.
In addition, the Council was updated on the coming legislation to enhance the functions of the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC) in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 and on the transfer of functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the body.
Finally, the Council agreed to meet again on 22 June 2001 and approved the joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
I am making this report on behalf of Mr Foster and myself.

Mr Jim Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s report and note and welcome the fact that the chairman informed the Council of the contributions that the agency and local angling clubs have made to curb the spread of foot-and- mouth disease. I know the Minister is aware that that co-operation has been freely given, not just within the Loughs Agency, but right across the Province.
I would like to bring the Minister back to her statement that agency staff have complied fully with disinfection procedures where they have had to address pollution or water quality issues. I seek her assurance that considerable attention is being paid to the run-off of disinfectant, because thousands of gallons of disinfectant are now pouring into our drains, and then into our streams and waterways. Before I am reminded that I cannot ask questions about the Province in general I want to focus on the Loughs Agency. The same concern is expressed right across the Province. Is the Minister keeping a focus on this issue, and are her staff co-operating with other Departments — for example, the environmental protection section of the Environment and Heritage Service, which is an agency of the Department of the Environment?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I can assure Mr Jim Wilson that I am very aware of the problem of run-off of disinfection or, indeed, anything else in the waters. I have been assured by the agency that it is taking all the necessary precautions on the foot-and-mouth disease situation. I imagine that because it is an agency whose main purpose is conservation and protection of the fishing environment, it will most certainly be taking precautions to ensure that nothing is done to damage the fish stocks.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Minister will be aware that the members of the Agriculture Committee were concerned about the inconsistency in regard to lights and the fact that the South of Ireland’s fishermen pay nothing, whereas our hard-pressed fishermen have to pay towards the upkeep of lights.
The Speaker mentioned that the Minister was going to deal with the matter of lights dues. Was the need for equality of opportunity for Northern Ireland fishermen discussed at the meeting? Fishermen in Northern Ireland should not have to pay for a service which fishermen in the South avail of free of charge.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Dr Paisley will be aware that the payment of lights dues by fishermen in Northern Ireland is not a matter for the Government of the Republic. I commend the Government of the Republic for not asking their fishermen to pay the lights dues, and I should like our fishermen to be treated in the same way. However, we are governed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Whitehall.
Dr Paisley might be aware that I wrote to the Minister to say that it is unfair that the fishermen should have to pay lights dues in Northern Ireland. In fact, I pointed out that fishermen in the Republic of Ireland were not required to pay those same dues. The response I received was not encouraging, so I wrote another letter to the Minister.
I have now been told that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is undertaking to review its policy on charging. I have asked the Department to ensure that the position of Northern Ireland fishermen is considered closely when this policy is being reviewed.
Dr Paisley will appreciate that at present this is a reserved matter of the UK Government. I will consider all the available options after the transfer of the functions from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, and we are attempting to develop that legislation at the moment.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I thank her for making an important reference to the efforts of anglers in the Foyle and Carlingford areas to co-operate with restrictions during the foot-and-mouth disease crisis.
In the light of the important visit to the Tralee and Clew Bay shellfish farms, will the Minister ensure that the management of shellfish farms is stringently controlled, particularly in regard to pollution. It is well recognised that this constitutes a major threat to waters worldwide, and the Committee highlighted this as an issue of considerable concern in its recent report to the House.
Does the Minister agree that the three sets of regulations are a welcome addition to the existing measures for protecting our salmon and trout populations? As a Committee, we will, in due course, be making a formal report to the Assembly on the content of the regulations.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr ONeill for his comments on the anglers whose contribution in the fight against foot-and-mouth disease is much appreciated. I met some anglers on Saturday during a visit to another area, and I was very aware of the difficulties being experienced by the angling clubs. They were nevertheless content that protection against foot-and-mouth disease has to be a priority, and I appreciate that.
The purpose of the legislation, which will be introduced as soon as possible, is to ensure that shellfish farms are properly managed and that all aspects of the operation are examined. I understand that the visit to Clew Bay was extremely informative and that the visitors learned a good deal about the management of those areas.
I have not taken a note of the next part of the question.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Are these regulations a welcome addition to the measures for protecting our salmon and trout populations?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Carcass tagging will be a very welcome means of protecting salmon. First, it will allow us to gain a clear picture and a database of the salmon stock. It will also be a helpful and effective way of preventing poaching of our salmon stocks. It will, therefore, be a very big advance.

Mr Alex Maskey: I appreciate that the Minister’s statement covers a wide range of issues such as foot-and-mouth disease, staffing matters, strategy and legislation. There is a pointer that says that some of this work has been outstanding for a number of months. Given the range of issues involved, will the Minister tell the House if she has taken any steps to ensure that there will be a full meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council to address these significant matters?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr Speaker, I am not sure if that question relates to today’s paper.

Mr Speaker: As the Minister knows, questions are on the statement that she has made.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member will be aware that the SDLP supports full meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. That has been our stated position. The Member will also be aware that the present embargo that has been placed — illegally, as I understand it — on Sinn Féin Members does not apply to my position on North/South Ministerial meetings in the field of agriculture. That is because, as a Nationalist Minister, I am always accompanied by a Unionist Minister. Therefore, it is not an issue in my own dealings with the North/South Ministerial Council. As some of the other issues are matters of judicial review, it would be unwise for me to say any more at this stage.

Mr George Savage: The Minister stated that the Loughs Agency is keen to develop a strategy for sustainable industry in aquaculture. Is there any limit or control on the extent to which these businesses can, or will be allowed to, grow?

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is not the intention of the agency to curb the development of these industries. It wishes to encourage the development of the industry, but in a regulated way that will also enhance the conservation of fish stocks. There has to be a sustainable industry, and the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that. The industry will be limited only by the capacity of the loughs. We have to ensure that stocks are preserved.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome particularly the announcement that
"a marine tourism officer has been appointed to begin work … on marine tourism for the Foyle and Carlingford areas."
Will the Minister advise us on the level of consultation that will be undertaken during the drafting of the strategy?

Ms Brid Rodgers: With regard to the drafting of our strategy, the agency intends to consult fully with all stakeholders. It recently advertised an invitation to interested parties to make suggestions as to how the consultation process should be established and what arrangements would be entered into. The outcome of that exercise was that the agency now plans to establish an advisory forum and focus groups, which will involve representatives of all of the local fisheries industries, including the marine tourism industries.
The focus groups representing all the sectoral interests in that area will consult with their own people — for example, in the case of marine tourism they will consult their wider community on marine tourism issues — and that will then feed back into the consultation process. Therefore, there will be a wide and, I stress, independent consultation. The agency will retain an independent consultant to recruit the membership of the focus groups and the advisory forum. Therefore, it will be a fully independent process of consultation with all the interests and stakeholders involved.

Mr Jim Wells: Last week, when the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment made a similar statement on North/ South meetings, he assured me that the minutes of those meetings were relayed to the Committee. I immediately checked that, but there was no trace of that’s happening.
I also asked the Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee whether his Committee is getting the minutes of the meetings that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development attends. He assured me that that was not happening.
These bodies are making important decisions on the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, yet all we receive from them are the statements that the Ministers deliver to the House. On this occasion, the statement is quite detailed, but that is unusual. Normally, we receive a few terse statements saying that a meeting was held, decisions were made and some money was disbursed.
Can the Minister assure us that the minutes of those meetings are, indeed, being referred to the Committee? If they are not, why not?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Mr Wells that in everything I do and in all my dealings, whether in the North/South Ministerial Council or on issues specific to Northern Ireland, I have been open and accountable. I have never tried to hide anything, nor is it my intention to do so. All decisions made at these meetings are put into the public domain via a joint communiqué.
As the Member has clearly recognised, I have given a very full account of everything that was decided or discussed at the meeting. It is doubtful that the minutes will be any more enlightening, but I will certainly take the matter up. I assure the Member that he has nothing to fear and that I have nothing to hide.
The whole purpose of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is to enhance the capacity of both loughs for the benefit of people in both parts of Ireland, both in the development of tourism potential and of the industry itself.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the detail that it goes into on the situation, and the large number of issues that have been addressed. It is incredible that the Minister feels that the ban on other ministerial Colleagues is not an issue for her — it certainly should be.

Mr Speaker: Order. I fail to see how the issue to which the Member has referred, and to which I referred in a ruling on sub judice earlier, is related to the Minister’s statement.

Mr Francie Molloy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You did not actually give a ruling on questions, in relation to another Minister asking questions —

Mr Speaker: Order. I referred to the fact that the Member is now asking a question that, by the very way that he asks it, indicates that it is nothing to do with that statement. These are questions on the statement — they are not general questions or questions on the generality of the Department. Members need to stick with the statement that the Minister has made. She has, in fact, already referred to precisely this issue.

Mr Gerry McHugh: I take your point, a Cheann Comhairle. My question relates to appointments to this particular body. It is not fully functioning, and, therefore, there are heavy costs in staffing, and so on. Can the Minister say something about that? It is not up and running because of legislation.
Are all measures being taken to allay the concerns of farmers in border areas about people entering lands via waterways, and the consequent fears of foot-and-mouth disease?

Ms Brid Rodgers: To set the record straight, the Member’s initial allegation concerns something that I did not actually say. He criticised me for saying something that I did not say. I do not want to reiterate my party’s position or my position on the matter, because those are well known. I assume that the Member’s question refers to appointments to the body itself rather than to the people who have been employed. Is Mr McHugh suggesting that it is not a good idea to have a North/South body for the Loughs Agency? We think that it is a very good idea, because it enables Ireland, North and South, to work together on a very important area. The body will allow us to develop the potential of Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle together. I presume that the Member is not suggesting that the body is a bad idea.
We could take the view that when a body is set up, it should have everything in order at once. It is obvious that when you set up a new body, you must make arrangements to make it fully operative. The body could not be fully operative from day one, given that legislation must be passed and we have to go through a consultation process with the stakeholders. All of that is part of the work of establishing what I consider to be a very important body that will enhance the potential of the loughs in the North and the South.

Mr Speaker: Given that Members have referred to the matter raised by Mr McHugh on two or three occasions and that the House seems to want direct reference made to it, I will look into it further. I refer the House again to Standing Order 68, paragraph (2), which states that
"matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to:"
I will study the matter further, but until then a straightforward reading of the Standing Order simply suggests what it says: the matter should not be referred to in a motion, a debate or a question to a Minister, including a supplementary question.
Because the House has pressed me, my interim ruling must follow what the Standing Order appears to mean. I will take legal advice on the question. The ruling may not appeal to all Members, but I trust that I have clarified matters as best I can. I cannot take any further points of order on that matter now, but if Members have other points of order that relate to the issue, I will take them at the end of questions to the Minister on the statement.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the Minister’s report, but I would like some clarification of the statement that
"a presentation was made to the Council on the agency’s detailed plans for selecting and appointing members to the advisory forum and focus groups".
It goes on to say that independent consultants will oversee the appointments. How many groups will be formed? Will the groups be quangos? Could the Department, with advice from the Committees, do some of the work? How much will each group or forum cost?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There will be one advisory forum and six focus groups. I cannot say how much those groups will cost, but I do not imagine that the cost will be very high. I assure Mrs Carson that it is very important that the Foyle and Carlingford Irish Lights Commision (FCILC) is in a position to consult with stakeholders and those who have an interest in the loughs. The legislation and regulations have not been in place before, and there are many people who have a legitimate interest in having their voices heard. It would be remiss of the agency if it were to ignore those people.
The best way to progress the legislation — since we are now going to have legislation to regulate the industry — is to give all these people their place, consult with them and ensure that they feel that they are part of the decision-making process. I do not see it as the setting up of a number of quangos; I would be surprised if it were a costly exercise.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I compliment the Minister, and her associate Minister, on this morning’s report and the great work that she is doing generally in relation to foot-and- mouth disease. The report refers to the aquaculture of the lough shores, particularly of Carlingford Lough. The Minister met with the Carlingford Lough Shore and Land Owners Association. Its members outlined their concerns regarding the proliferation of aquaculture licences, particularly in areas where they have the ownership of the rights to the wrack. They think that there should at least be a moratorium on the issue of licences until the landowners’ difficulties with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are sorted out. Can the Minister accede to that, because it is important? Farming diversification for these landowners could mean aquaculture involving their wrack rights on the lough shore. Can the Minister give further consideration to a moratorium on, or a suspension of, further aquaculture licences on our side of Carlingford Lough?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr McGrady for his initial remarks and his question. I met with interested parties, and Mr McGrady, on the issue of Carlingford Lough wrack rights. Individuals are claiming those rights, and they have provided evidence that is being examined by the Department’s legal advisers. The legislation recognises the rights of individuals who have proven ownership of the right to collect wrack, and the issue is being progressed by the Department.

Mr Edwin Poots: It is notable that this is the third report within two weeks of an all-Ireland Council meeting that has been attended by the Ulster Unionist Party. The report mentions a proposal that
"a review of the grading and salary of field staff posts be undertaken as a matter of urgency."
The communiqué talks of the review of the Loughs Agency’s staffing and structure being postponed for six months until January 2002. There would seem to be some confusion between the Minister’s statement and the communiqué that was produced. What is the staffing situation? How many staff are currently in the field? How many are required? When will the review take place? Will it be in January, or will it be carried out urgently?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I cannot give the actual staffing figures, but I will get them. I presume that the Member is talking about the overall number of staff that are employed by the agency.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am talking about the number of field staff.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not have that figure to hand, but I will let the Member know. The review is of field officers only, so there is not a contradiction in the statement.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome the statement. It is useful to have these updates, particularly when some people do not have the opportunity to attend the meetings. However, it was a cheap shot from the Minister to respond to my Colleague Gerry McHugh without answering the question about the North/South Ministerial Council. The Minister will be aware that our party was instrumental in the putting together of all-Ireland structures. I need a clear answer from the Minister about the implementation of, and the legislation in relation to, these bodies to ensure that they are fully operational.
In case there is any doubt, I am talking about what is said in the statement. It is important at this time to get a clear line, because these cheap shots from the Minister about party politics are not in keeping with the statement. Does the Minister agree that the fact that SDLP Ministers continue to attend the North/South Ministerial Council meetings gives the impression that everything is rosy in the North/South Ministerial Council when, in fact, people are being excluded from the meetings?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have ruled that that matter should not be referred to, and there was a quite clear attempt to find some way of slipping the matter in. I must advise the Minister that she should not respond to that part of the question.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not think that there was a question in that tirade — except in relation to answers that I had given as being "cheap shots". I answered the question that I was asked — [Interruption].

Mr Francie Molloy: I will repeat my question.

Mr Speaker: Order — [Interruption].
Order. The Member will resume his seat.
Ministers are not required to answer questions; they are requested to do so. I referred to that matter in response to a question by Rev Dr Ian Paisley. I have also made it clear that points of order are not in order during questions to Ministers. However, I am happy to take points of order at the end of the period of questions to the Minister. This matter also has arisen on a number of occasions. The Member has put his question. The Minister does not consider the issue that Mr Molloy has raised to be part of the question. I cannot rule that the Minister must answer any particular aspect of the matter that the Member has raised.

Mr Francie Molloy: Would you let me explain? The Minister said that she did not think there was a question. I was simply explaining that there were two questions, one of which was already asked by Mr McHugh.

Mr Speaker: I leave it to the Minister to respond as she wishes.

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is to be regretted that Sinn Féin has turned a report on an important element of the North/ South Ministerial Council into a political point-scoring exercise. I will respond to any questions that I feel are relevant to my brief and that relate to my statement.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Minister confirm that, according to the statement, extra fishing accessibility is being awarded to those in the Foyle constituency while fishing accessibility in West Tyrone is actually being limited? That seems rather strange, given the circumstances that the Minister will find herself in. Can she explain the rationale of allowing the reopening of accessibility to fishing on the Foyle, which will in fact limit the availability of fish passing through to the rest of the Foyle system? I am thinking of the River Mourne particularly.
Can she tell me exactly to which part of the River Mourne the ban on angling is being extended? Can she comment on the continued intimidation and threats to bailiffs in that area? Was that issue discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and how is it being dealt with?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The ban on angling on a stretch of the River Foyle was introduced in 1999 to prevent illegal netting from a heavily poached stretch of the river. It will be unnecessary when the tagging scheme is introduced.
The area closed to angling on the River Mourne has been extended to prevent excessive exploitation of salmon and sea trout in an area where there is a natural obstacle to migration. The purpose of these exercises is the conservation of the fish stock and the enhancement of the whole industry.

Mr Oliver Gibson: How will the carcass tagging of 20-inch salmon prevent the overnetting and illegal netting that have been so prevalent in parts of the Foyle, Derg and Mourne rivers?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Salmon carcass tagging will be a more efficient and effective way of preventing illegal catching of salmon. Therefore, it will help prevent the illegal selling of salmon to hotels, for instance, because it will be difficult to sell a salmon unless it is tagged. If the salmon is not tagged, then it will have been poached. It will be much easier to keep track of salmon and ensure that people do not benefit from selling poached salmon — in the sense of being illegally caught, as opposed to being cooked. Also it can be done during the day by officials checking if the salmon being sold are tagged or not, rather than by policing the rivers during the night when most poaching takes place.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and particularly the plan by the Loughs Agency to establish the advisory forum and focus groups. Will the Minister assure the House that all the stakeholders will be fully represented on these groups? This did not happen when the agency itself was appointed. There was a distinct lack of representation in respect of the fishing community.
Is the Minister satisfied that the process undertaken and the criteria used by independent consultants will be fully inclusive, and particularly of the fisheries industry in Lough Foyle? Will these bodies report to the North/ South Ministerial Council? What costs will be incurred by employing consultants? Has there been any advance on the matter of the enabling legislation to allow the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission to operate fully?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Go raibh maith agat. Níl a fhios agam ar mhaith leis an Teachta go dtabharfainn freagra i nGaedhilg nó i mBéarla.

Ms Mary Nelis: No.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I was offering to answer in Irish, since the Member initiated her remarks in Irish. She does not want that, so I will proceed in English.
In relation to the focus groups — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I have already stated, there will be a fully independent procedure to decide the membership of the focus groups. This will not be decided by me or by the bodies. It will be decided on an independent basis to ensure that they are independent of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission itself. At the North/South Ministerial Council we had a full presentation on the process to be undertaken and the criteria to be used. I am entirely satisfied that it will be inclusive and that all stakeholders will be enabled to be involved in the consultation.
I cannot give a figure for the costs incurred by the consultants, but I will find out and let the Member know later.
We are proceeding with the enabling legislation, although there are some difficulties in the area of the appeals procedure. At the moment it allows for an aggrieved person to appeal a decision but not for a third party to do so. In other words, other people may object and have their objections overruled or not considered when making the decision. They do not have a right to appeal under our present legislation in the North, which could leave us open to a Human Rights Commission investigation.
A number of other issues are being looked at on both sides of the border, because the two jurisdictions need to bring the legislation forward together. A number of complicated issues still need to be ironed out, but I am hoping to have the legislation ready as soon as possible.

Mr Roy Beggs: Before the establishment of the North/ South bodies, visits to lighthouses such as Islandmagee lighthouse in my constituency required local youth groups to contact the Commissioners of Irish Lights in Dublin. Is there now a local contact number to enable people in Northern Ireland to contact the Irish Lights body without having to make international phone calls?
Secondly, the issue of shellfish was discussed. Will the Minister say if any concern was raised at the meeting about the number of bodies in Northern Ireland that are carrying out water quality tests, given the duplication and lack of responsibility that result? Finally, will the Minister say whether the discussions took place in everyone’s first language or if Irish was used?

Ms Brid Rodgers: In response to whether the business of the meeting was carried out in Irish or English, it was carried out in English, because a number of people there did not understand Irish. It would have been extremely rude to carry out business in that language since we did not have any interpreters. If interpreters had been present for the benefit of those who did not understand the language, I would have been happy to carry out the business in Irish. In the absence of interpreters, I could not do that. Indeed, I would be very happy to carry out all the business that I do in this House in my language, which is Irish, if other people could understand me by putting on earphones.
Irish Lights’ responsibilities have not yet been transferred to the body, because there are a number of difficulties in that area also.

Mr Roy Beggs: What about the question on shellfish?

Ms Brid Rodgers: What question was that? Mr Speaker, it would be preferable if Members would try to ask just one or two questions. It is very difficult to remember three or four.

Mr Speaker: I have often referred the House to the fact that this is an opportunity for Members to ask one question. When they ask more than one — and sometimes the questions have as many legs as a centipede — the Minister may choose to answer none, one or some of them, but may not necessarily be able to answer all of them, even if he or she wishes to. This is salutary. There is much talk about power sharing; perhaps question sharing with Members who do not have a question might be the way to deal with the matter.

Product Liability (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to amend Part II of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to the Bill, but the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy, has indicated that he wishes to speak on clause 3. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the first two clauses and then deal with clause 3, clauses 4 to 6 and, finally, the long title.
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Tenancies to which this Act applies)

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. Before addressing the Committee’s concerns about clause 3, I want to thank all those organisations that took the time to write to us and give us their views. I also thank the Minister and ask him to pass on our thanks to the Office of Law Reform, whose officials assisted the Committee during its detailed consideration of the clauses.
In giving evidence, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Housing Rights Service raised concerns about clause 3. Their concerns centred on the fact that the clause exempts landlords of registered and regulated tenancies from the main provisions of the Bill — that is, the additional liability otherwise provided for. During consultation with the Office of Law Reform, it emerged that the Department for Social Development has commenced a major review of the private rented sector with the aim of conducting a thorough analysis of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 in relation to protected tenancies.
The Committee was told that the intention behind the review was to improve the state of the private rented sector.
The Office of Law Reform told the Committee that the primary purpose of the Bill was to address the issue of liability in tort. It was designed to clarify and extend the liability that applies to landlords but could not focus on imposing repair obligations on the landlord. The Committee received evidence from the Law Reform Advisory Committee. It emerged that the Law Reform Advisory Committee had been influenced and persuaded by representations from the Housing Executive. In addition, it had concluded that owing to the low return that they receive from rental income, there would be a problem of equity should the extended liability provided for in the Bill be imposed on landlords of restricted and regulated tenancies.
The Law Reform Advisory Committee had not considered the broader issue of housing rights, nor was it trying to improve the quality of housing stock. The focus of its consideration was restricted to the limits of liability in the event of an accident causing injury or damage. The Law Reform Advisory Committee had identified an anomaly between the Defective Premises Act 1972 in Great Britain and the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 and had endeavoured to remedy that anomaly.
The Committee concluded that this Bill was not an appropriate vehicle for addressing shortcomings in the quality of properties in the private rented sector. Members noted the advice of the Assembly’s legal adviser that while grants were available to landlords of restricted and regulated tenancies to undertake repairs, recent reductions in the scale of those grants meant that they were not sufficient to enable a meaningful level of refurbishment to be undertaken.
The Committee concluded that in the present circumstances it would not be appropriate to apply the additional liability envisaged by the Bill to such landlords. The Committee agreed, however, that this was an undesirable outcome to its consideration of the Bill. Members were deeply concerned that the tenants of restricted and regulated tenancies were disadvantaged in relation to the legal redress available to them should injury or damage occur as a result of defects in such properties. The Committee concluded that this situation was unsatisfactory in the longer term.
The Committee decided that its concerns about the exemptions in respect of liability afforded to landlords of restricted and regulated tenancies should be formally conveyed to the review of the private rented sector being undertaken by the Department for Social Development. The Committee further agreed that those concerns should be drawn to the attention of the Social Development Committee, and I have taken steps to do that. The Committee agreed that clause 3 should be recommended to the Assembly for approval. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Mark Durkan: I agree with much of what the Member has said and thank him and the members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the scrutiny given to this Bill. The Committee has done a thorough job, and the useful working relationship that it has fashioned with my officials in the Office of Law Reform has been demonstrated. Law reform bills can be complex and technical, and I am grateful to Members for coming to grips with the legal niceties — and the not-so-niceties — of this Bill.
I agree that it is unsatisfactory that regulated and restricted tenancies are exempted from this limited extension of liability and recognise the difficulties that could have resulted if we had not acted in this way.
It is clear to all associated with the Bill that the current state of protected tenancies in this jurisdiction requires close scrutiny. Those living in such tenancies face certain and distinct disadvantages in living conditions. Equally, and the Committee appreciates this point, landlords of such properties do not have entirely easy options. They cannot command reasonable rents, a fact clearly highlighted for those restricted landlords who, in many instances, are not entitled to a rent worth collecting. The system of grants, which may help to repair unfit properties, is, at best, unsatisfactory. There are little or no enforcement powers available at present. It is in this context that the exemption is standing as part of the Bill. If I felt that any of the above factors would mean that the extension of liability to such groups would not be onerous, I would have no hesitation in applying them.
Like the Chairman, I welcome the fact that the Department for Social Development proposes to review the private rented sector. The universal hope is that this review will bear fruit and lead to an improvement in the housing stock of such properties. However, we agree that this limited law reform measure, which will deal with the situation after an injury or damage occurring, is not the vehicle to bring about such desirable reform.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. There is one amendment tabled and selected to clause 1, which will be considered in the usual way. I have also had indication that a Member wishes to speak about clause 9. I will take the amendment and clause 1; clauses 2 to 8 ; clause 9; clauses 10 to 16, and the long title of the Bill.
Clause 1 (Regulations giving effect to Convention)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Aithníodh an gá leis an leasú seo nuair a bhí an Bille faoi bhreithniú ag an Choiste, agus gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Chathaoirleach agus le baill an Choiste as a mbreithniú cúramach ar an Bhille.
Cuireann alt 1 den Bhille ar chumas na Roinne rialacháin a dhéanamh agus coireanna a chruthú maidir le sárú na rialachán sin. De réir mar a dréachtaíodh an Bille, tá an t-uasphionós is féidir a ghearradh i ndáil le coir a cruthaíodh faoi alt 1 (príosúntacht trí mhí nó fíneáil nach mó ná leibhéal a cúig, nó an dá chuid) ag teacht lena chomhfhoráil san Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill 1999 i Sasana, in Albain agus sa Bhreatain Bheag.
Dar leis an Choiste gur cóir an t-uastéarma príosúntachta a ardú go sé mhí le gurbh ionann é agus an t-uastéarma don choir in alt 12, sin é páiste a thabhairt isteach sa tír i gcoinne na rialachán. Chrothomódh an leasú ailt 1 agus 12 sa Bhille.
Ní athraíonn an leasú cuspóirí polasaí an Bhille.
I beg to move amendment 1: In page 1, line 14 leave out "three" and insert "six". — [Ms de Brún]
The need for this amendment was identified during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for their careful consideration of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes powers for the Department to make regulations and to create offences for contravening those regulations.
As the clause is currently drafted, the maximum penalty that may be imposed in relation to an offence — three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5, or both — is consistent with the equivalent provision in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 in England, Scotland and Wales. In the Committee’s view, the maximum term of imprisonment should be six months, the same as for the offence under clause 12 of bringing a child into the country in contravention of the regulations. The amendment would create consistency between clauses 1 and 12. The amendment does not reflect any change in the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim an leasú.

Dr Joe Hendron: I support the amendment. The issue was raised during our deliberations at the Committee Stage, and the need for an amendment was agreed. Committee members are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take forward the amendment. It will ensure consistency with regard to the terms of imprisonment for the offences covered by clause 1 and clause 12 of the Bill.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety did not undertake consultation on the specific issues covered by the Bill, and, therefore, the Committee decided that it would undertake a consultation exercise on the policy aims. Twenty-four groups from the statutory and voluntary sectors responded to the exercise, and the vast majority welcomed the proposed legislation.
The Committee is satisfied that the Bill ensures that the best interests of children are paramount. It brings greater uniformity and standardisation to the processes, places existing arrangements on a statutory basis and introduces two new offences. It will now be unlawful for anyone other than an approved adoption agency to assess the suitability of prospective adopters of children from overseas or to bring a child into this country without certain conditions being satisfied.
Some respondents raised other important issues, and I would like to cover those briefly today. Some of them expressed concern about the lack of uniformity on the part of health and social services trusts with regard to charging for assessments of persons who apply to adopt children from overseas. Committee members were concerned that different trusts had different practices and agreed on the need for equality and uniformity across Northern Ireland. The Committee raised that issue with the Minister and welcomes the Minister’s intention to issue guidance to the trusts regarding charging for assessments in order to ensure consistency.
As a result of the consultation exercise, it also came to the attention of the Committee that children adopted and brought into Northern Ireland through the intercountry adoption process do not appear to be entitled to a post- arrival health check. That procedure should be completed in the child’s country of origin as part of the entry clearance procedures. However, Committee members agreed that a full health check on arrival in Northern Ireland should be mandatory so that any illnesses can be treated and managed properly.
The matter was also raised with the Minister, and the Committee welcomed the Minister’s positive response that it is her intention to consider, with the Department of Health in England, whether mandatory health checks should be introduced as an additional safeguard for children adopted from overseas.
Finally, I would like to highlight the Committee’s concern at the case of the twin girls adopted, as it were, in the United States and brought into the United Kingdom. It seems that, despite the stipulation in the Bill that assessments must be carried out by a registered adoption agency, all loopholes may not have been covered. Therefore, we welcome the assurance from the Minister that if, as a result of ongoing discussions with Whitehall officials, new primary or secondary legislation is found to be necessary, every effort will be made to bring it to the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible.
I am sure that Members will agree with the Committee that the Bill should go ahead, allowing the positive aspects to come into force, rather than await the outcome of those discussions. The Committee will return to the matters still under consideration in due course in order to ensure a satisfactory resolution.

Mr David Ford: I wish to make a couple of brief points. I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced the amendment, which, as Members can see, is somewhat similar to one that I sought to put down. She beat me to it by a few minutes.
As has been highlighted by the Minister, amendment 1 is necessary for internal consistency in the Bill. It is also necessary because of the suggestion that a maximum sentence of three months would have been regarded as relatively light in certain circles. The majority of those who might be tempted to flout the law would be couples who find themselves in trying and difficult circumstances. I am not suggesting that Members should be seeking maximum penalties of imprisonment in those circumstances. However, it is essential that a higher penalty be installed for instances where there is a suggestion that anybody is organising such arrangements for more than one family or is trafficking in babies.
Dr Hendron mentioned consistency on charges between trusts. That is an equality issue. If I may digress, I welcome the action that the Minister took last week to redress the differences that existed in different areas of Northern Ireland regarding fertility treatment. The Minister will need to be seen to be taking action to ensure that trusts are given — and adhere to — sufficiently strong guidance so that she will not face the same equality challenge over the issue of charging adoption fees.
I have no doubt that she will take account of those points, just as she took account of the question I raised last week — even though I did not get the chance to ask it. I urge the House to support amendment 1 and the Bill.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have written to the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee about charging for assessments in relation to intercountry adoptions. I share the Committee’s view that there should be uniformity between trusts in their approach to that matter. It would not necessarily be appropriate to take statutory powers in the Bill to prescribe the level of charges. However, I understand the Committee’s concern and that of those who have raised the matter this morning. As I indicated to Dr Hendron, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be issuing guidance on charging to ensure that it is carried out on a uniform and consistent basis.
I agree that a mandatory health check would be an additional safeguard. However, those people who are adopting children from overseas are advised to contact their GP to make arrangements for a comprehensive health check of the child as soon as possible. From that viewpoint I am not convinced that it is necessary to make health checks mandatory. The Department expects those parents adopting a child from abroad to have regard for the health of the child.
In preparing for the implementation of the new legislation the Health Department will be issuing extensive guidance over a wide range of matters. That guidance will address the need for adoptive parents to ensure that they approach their GP to arrange a comprehensive health check of the child as soon as is convenient.
In respect of the restriction on advertising contained in the Adoption and Children Bill the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is monitoring the position with a view to introducing an equivalent provision here as soon as possible.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 (Six months residence required for certain intercountry adoptions)

Mr Jim Shannon: I would like some clarification on clause 9. Some of my constituents have indicated that it can take up to four years to bring a child through the intercountry adoption agency. Paragraph 32 of the explanatory and financial memorandum on the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill states that
"the child is required to have had his home with the prospective adopters for a period of at least six months before an adoption order may be made."
How can that happen when some people have told me that it can take up to four years for an adoption to take place, whether it be from the Crimea, Romania or Brazil? Will the Minister tell the House if a difference has been made between the adoption agency and individuals who have pursued the adoption under their own steam and through the process?
It is important that adoption agencies and individuals have the same timescale for adoption.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The idea is that a period of sixmonths would apply to those cases where the placement of the child was made by an adoption agency. In cases where the arrangements were not made by an adoption agency, the current provisions concerning the period before an adoption order may be made will remain at 12 months.
I did not catch part of the Member’s question. If I have not answered his question I will try again.

Mr Jim Shannon: My constituents have told me that it can take four years to adopt. I cannot understand clause 9. The explanatory memorandum states that
"the child is required to have had his home with the prospective adopters for a period of at least six months before an adoption order may be made."
I am trying to clarify how six months is the issue when people have told me that it takes four years.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The child must be in place regardless of the operational question of the time taken. In my view that is separate from the fact that the child must be there for six months. I am still not sure if I have answered the Member’s question.

Mr Jim Shannon: If it states in the legislation that a child must be in the adopter’s house for six months, how can we equate that with someone who wants to adopt a child? For example, two suitable adopters in NorthernIreland have told me that it takes four years to adopt a baby from the Crimea. How can they get around this process? How can they fit into the six-months category?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: MrShannon is not seeking clarification on the legislation but on a totally separate matter which is outside the remit of what we are dealing with today. With regard to the legislation, the period of six months which is being sought is to allow those responsible to be satisfied about the welfare of the child. It is to allow them to assess the suitability of the persons having care of the child and to make whatever additional enquiries may be necessary overseas concerning the circumstances of the adoption or how the child came into the care of the prospective adopters. The other matters are not ones for today.

Mr Speaker: I must remind Members, as the Minister has done, that when considering legislation it is the legislation itself that we have to consider.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.
The sitting was suspended at 1.22 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Question number 4, in the name of Mr Ivan Davis, has been withdrawn. Question number 7, in the name of Mr Alex Maskey, has been ruled inadmissible under Standing Order 68, on the grounds of sub judice. Question number 13, in the name of Mr Roy Beggs, has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and Mr Beggs will receive a written answer.
I remind the House about the question of sub judice. This matter was raised this morning, and I took the view that, under Standing Order 68, any reference to a matter before the court, or indeed a matter set down for appeal, was sub judice. The matter before the court is the lawfulness or otherwise of the particular decision, and that is what falls under sub judice under Standing Order 68. Therefore, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is inadmissible in any questions, including supplementary questions — or, indeed, Ministerial replies — to make reference to the question before the court. I make that point at this stage in the hope — not I trust, a vain one — that that will conclude the matter for the rest of the day.

Public Appointments

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an assessment on transparency in public appointments following the publication of the Fourth Annual Report on Public Appointments.
(AQO1346/00)


The procedures for public appointments are drawn up by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. They emphasise the need for appointments to be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, the inclusion of an independent element in the selection process, openness and transparency in the appointments procedure and information to be published about appointments made. All Northern Ireland Departments are required to make appointments to their public bodies based on merit and in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance. The involvement of independent assessors in the process should provide a guarantee of the objective implementation of the Commissioner’s code and is intended to provide the public with assurance that the process is transparent and fair.


The Fourth Annual Report on Public Appointments states that there are 2,300 public appointments on a total of 117 bodies. Does the Minister agree that this is an excessive number under devolution, especially when the total funding that these bodies administer is taken into account? Many quangos have been made redundant by the responsibilities of the new Government Departments and Assembly Committees.
For example, is the Training and Employment Agency board, with 12 members and salaries totalling £70,335, really necessary? It has a remit that could now be overseen by the relevant Committee and Department. Three members were recently appointed, so it is obvious that the Department wishes to continue with the quango. Will the Minister investigate the situation, with a view to an immediate reorganisation and review to reduce the number of quangos?


I take the Member’s point. She will, of course, be aware that Ministers are responsible for public appointments in the remit of their Departments. The role of non-departmental public bodies is a matter that will be considered as part of the review of public administration. The First Minister and I will write to the Member with details of the budgets of non- departmental public bodies.
I agree with the thrust of the Member’s question. Given the type of structures that have been created politically since the Good Friday Agreement, there is duplication of effort by the large number of public bodies.


Does the Minister accept that underrepresentation of some sectors still remains an issue? Will he make a statement about the appointment of a commissioner, and does he agree that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should make this appointment?


It is accepted that members of public bodies in Northern Ireland should be more representative of the social and cultural mix of the communities which they serve and that members should be drawn from a broad range of backgrounds and experience. Appointments, of course, depend on the range and calibre of people who put themselves forward for selection. We consider it important to encourage a wide range of people to apply for public appointments. Action has been taken to address underrepresentation, and this includes the wide circulation of a six-monthly list of forthcoming vacancies on public bodies; more varied use of the media advertising of public appointment opportunities; and reviewing the job specification for each public appointment to ensure that the criteria do not discriminate against any group.
Application forms are also being revised to make them less off-putting, especially to women and underrepresented groups and to enable greater account to be taken of the merits of non-traditional career patterns.
I agree that the appointment of a commissioner should fall to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister rather than to the Secretary of State as at present. We will therefore make a Prerogative Order shortly which will confer the power of appointment to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
As part of a wider review of the public appointments policy we will also consider whether to appoint a separate commissioner for Northern Ireland. In the interim, however, we have agreed to extend the period of appointment of Dame Rennie Fritchie, who also acts as Commissioner in Britain, and that will last until 28 February 2002.


Does the Deputy First Minister agree that to enhance transparency in public appointments clear criteria should be published, one of which should be that appointees have no terrorist convictions? In the light of the boast of terrorist involvement this weekend by the Minister of Education, will the Deputy First Minister say whether the First Minister has indicated to him that his party will be joining the DUP in calling for the resignation of the Minister of Education?


The Member raises a matter which relates to an elected appointment under the d’Hondt system — it is not a public appointment. In relation to public appointments the criteria are there and have, by and large, been fulfilled. As I pointed out in answer to a previous question, things such as the structures under which we operate are changing, and the need for many quangos has receded.

Executive Office in Brussels (Cost)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the final cost of setting up the Executive office in Brussels.
(AQO1333/00)


The current estimate is £299,000. The final cost will depend on exchange rates at the time when payment is made. The work of fitting out the office should be completed by the end of May.


What was the initial estimated cost for this job, and what process was undertaken to obtain prices for the work? What is the difference between the initial and the current estimates?


The initial estimate was not a fully worked out costing. The present costing reflects the price of converting open-floor space into office accommodation. The original estimate was much lower than the present one. I regret that I do not have the relevant figure before me at the moment, but I shall inform the Member in writing.


Although the Executive Office in Brussels will represent the Executive as a whole, does the First Minister accept that key sectors such as finance, agriculture and industry need to develop specific issues with the European institutions? How will these interests be catered for?


We have established an interdepartmental group chaired by the junior Ministers whose function it is in the first instance to consider the priorities of the Office. In that way we hope to ensure that the Office will reflect the interests of the Administration across all the Departments.

Community Relations Council

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to explain the delay in appointing eight representatives to the Community Relations Council.
(AQO1323/00)


I refer the Member to our written response of 2 April to question 2173/00. The making of appointments was initially hindered by the suspension of the Assembly between 11 February and 29 May 2000. More recently, the Department initiated a triannual evaluation of the Community Relations Council. We also announced in the Programme for Government our intention to carry out a major review of community relations policies. In these circumstances it was decided that it would not be appropriate to make further appointments to the Council before we had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the evaluation and the policy review.
I assure the House that we remain fully committed to tackling the divisions that remain in our society. We will, by means of the review, and the subsequent strategy, ensure that we have effective policies in place to do that.


I thank the Minister for that response, but it leaves me a little baffled. I understand that the suspension of this Assembly in the early part of last year prevented the making of appointments. However, in a written answer which I should have received on 16 March, but did not receive until 2 April, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister told me that interviews took place on 7 and 21 February and, in their response to me on 19 February, they indicated that appointments would be made soon. The interviews took place on 7 and 21 February 2000, but I received my response on 19 February 2001.
It appears that the three-month suspension of the Assembly managed to delay matters for an entire year. I cannot understand how the First Minister could have failed to make any appointment if, as they state, community relations policy is a priority for this Executive. Is this failure to appoint staff to such a vital community relations body for over a year to be taken as a suggestion that we believe in the conspiracy theory of politics of this nature, rather than the cock-up theory?


I assure the Member that a conspiracy theory was the furthest thing from our minds. I accept that there was a delay in informing those who had been interviewed of their position. We have written to those people, explained the position, and we have apologised for that delay. We have also instructed officials to review procedures for handling such matters to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future. But the question still remains: would it have been better to go ahead and make appointments prior to the review and the assessment of the community relations policy? Alternatively, would it have been better to await the review and make the appointments on the basis of what might be a re-evaluation of policy and operation?


I am sure that the Minister agrees that the issue of community relations is a crucial one. Is it his view that the current aims of the Community Relations Council remain appropriate?


I believe that the broad general aims are appropriate. The Community Relations Council has operated under very difficult circumstances through many difficult years. However, its priorities, needs and requirements change as other factors change in our society. Unfortunately, one thing has not yet changed, and that is the attitude of those in our society who do not regard community relations as important. The hon Member and I have seen examples of it quite recently in our constituency. We must make the North of Ireland a better place, and the more we can improve the policy of the Community Relations Council, the better it will get.

British/Irish Council: Environment Sectoral Meeting

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the topics that were discussed at the last British-Irish Council sectoral meeting on environment and to make a statement.
(AQO1326/00)


The last British-Irish Council sectoral meeting on the environment was held in London on 2October2000. Following that meeting, the Minister of the Environment made a statement to the Assembly on 6November2000. I refer the Member to that statement and to the communiqué issued after the meeting, a copy of which is held in the Assembly Library.
The environment sectoral meeting discussed a wide range of priority areas suggested by its members. Ministers agreed that the initial work should concentrate on three issues. The first was radioactive waste from the Sellafield site. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man authorities agreed to lead in the preparation of a paper for the next sectoral meeting. Secondly, the British Government took the lead on the topic of the impact of climate change. The third issue was waste management, on which the Scottish Executive agreed to prepare a paper about initiatives being pursued in Scotland.


The Minister will note that since that meeting, PresidentBush has said that the United States of America no longer subscribes to the principles in the Kyoto protocol on environment and climate change. Can the Minister assure the House that the Executive will continue to play a full part in implementing the principles contained in the Kyoto protocol and also those of the Hague summit of November2000? These measures in respect of environment and climate change and global warming could well be developed through the mechanisms of the British-Irish Council. Though this is a small community, it is important that we give voice to our concern on these matters.


I agree that we must play our full role. I also believe that we can do that through the mechanism and structure of the British-Irish Council. It was very disappointing that agreement was not reached in the Hague. When talks resume in Bonn in July, new efforts will be made to reach a deal that will pave the way for the ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto protocol by 2002. All EU members, as well as people in other countries around the world, remain committed to implementing that protocol. The Executive are fully committed to contributing to the satisfaction of the Kyoto obligation, and we will pursue that at every opportunity, not least through the British-Irish Council.

Programme for Government: Northern Ireland Bureau Washington DC

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what progress has been made on the Programme for Government commitments concerning the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington DC.
(AQO1353/00)


A number of steps have been undertaken in order to meet our commitments in respect of the Northern Ireland Bureau. Engaging an additional member of staff at middle management level has strengthened the bureau’s resources. We are examining ways to develop a strong working relationship with relevant branches of the United States Administration and Congress.
In that context, we will be reviewing the functions of the bureau, its structure and its relationship with other bodies promoting Northern Ireland in the United States. The objective will be to ensure that a positive image of Northern Ireland is projected in the United States to maximum effect.


In the last few years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the adoption of the Programme for Government there have been fundamental changes in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. Can the First Minister give us some indication of how the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington will reflect those fundamental changes, the new relationships with the Irish Government and the devolved Administrations in Britain?


The Member is right to say that the context within which the Northern Ireland Bureau operates has changed significantly. We are undertaking a number of steps which we hope will develop its role further. There has already been an increase in staff. An additional member of staff has been recruited to act as public relations manager. The bureau now acts as a representative of this Administration and is already developing good contacts with key people on Capitol Hill and in the Bush Administration. We plan to review the structure of the bureau and its relationship with other bodies in promoting Northern Ireland in the USA.
It is also anticipated that the bureau will move from its present location in the Embassy to more central premises in downtown Washington sometime in the summer. However, the staff at the Northern Ireland Bureau will continue to be accredited to the Embassy in order to retain diplomatic status.


Does the First Minister agree that there would be advantages in creating synergy between an IDB office in, or beside, the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington? Is he aware that the IDB office — with operational responsibility for the political centre of gravity in North America — is based in Boston? Is he also aware that the IDB’s North American budget is approximately 10 times that which is being proposed for the bureau?


There is a great deal in what the Member is saying. The IDB locations and budgets reflect the particular task of the Industrial Development Board and its objectives with regard to interfacing with United States industry. The Northern Ireland Bureau is preparing a strategy paper on the options available, including the specific matter of possible co-location of an IDB office and a tourist office with the bureau. The decision will, of course, be taken by Ministers here.


With regard to the work of the bureau and the promotion of the best interests of Northern Ireland, does the Minister not think that the work of that bureau in the United States is undermined by having, as part of his Administration, someone who has admitted that he was second in command of the IRA in Londonderry? Will he take steps to remove that gentleman from office?


Order. I have made it clear in the past that I do not make my judgements on the basis of newspaper reports. I draw that to Members’ attention in view of the rulings on parliamentary convention, of which the Member will be aware.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker.


I do not take points of order during questions to Ministers. I will take it at the end.


As I have pointed out in reply to other questions, the object of the bureau is to represent the best interests of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the bureau will do so, despite the fact that it will be hampered by the rather hypocritical attitude to participation in the Executive adopted by the party the Member represents. As to — [Interruption]


Order.


As to his coat-trailing comments, I refer the Member to what I said on that subject in the very first speech I made in this Assembly on 1 July 1998. He should go and read it.


Order. Members frequently remark on the limited number of questions that it is possible to get through at Question Time. It is made all the more limited if there is disorder in the Chamber.


I welcome the fact that the First Minister has recognised the important role that the Northern Ireland Bureau has played over the years. Can he indicate when the changes are going to take place? Also, can he clarify what the role of the bureau will be in the future, as that is a problem at the moment?


The bureau’s focus in the past tended to be on economic issues. With the new Administration here, we see the bureau as reflecting the interests of the Administration as a whole. Consequently, it is looking at its strategy and the way in which it is going to work.
As I said in reply to other questions, it hopes to relocate in the summer, but that will depend on circumstances and events there.
As to the issues that the bureau will be pursuing, I am sure that there will still be a very strong emphasis on economic matters, given the ongoing interest in doing business with the US and the very substantial US investment in Northern Ireland. However, we can work closely with the US Administration on other specific areas such as education, and we are anxious to do so.

Invitation to the President of the United States

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if, during the recent visit to Washington DC, an invitation was extended to the President of the United States to visit Northern Ireland to join in the celebrations of the Battle of the Boyne.
(AQO1319/00)


However attractive the Twelfth of July celebrations might be, the President will have many demands on his time during his first year in office. Consequently, no invitation has yet been extended to the President to visit Northern Ireland, although we hope that he is able to visit at some time during his term in office.


Do you agree that when our politicians arrive in America they seem quite comfortable in celebrating St Patrick’s Day surrounded by everything green — green faces, green leprechauns and green flags? Is this due to the change of climate or the influence of the President?
If President Bush agreed to attend the Battle of the Boyne celebrations, do you think that his presence would have the same effect here? Could the President contribute to the achievement of civil rights and equality for all, including the right to walk home from a church service in July? Do you think that it would be good for tourism, and can you envisage the marketing of the Twelfth of July celebrations as a major tourist attraction in America?


I remind the Member that when she refers to "you", she refers to the Speaker. I shall, however, assume that the question is put to the House and to the First Minister.


I am sorry, Mr Speaker.


You, Mr Speaker, would, no doubt, be able to give an enthusiastic response to the Member’s question. A number of points could be made in response. The Member’s points in regard to parity of esteem were very well made, and I hope that Members across the House appreciated them. It would be nice to see what is, in many respects, the largest folk festival in western Europe operate as something to be enjoyed by everyone — as a tourist attraction it could be thus enjoyed.
However, I take issue with one of the Member’s initial comments. St Patrick’s contribution should be seen as something that benefits all sections of the community. In that context, it was very nice to see the Democratic Unionist Party represented in the White House along with all the other parties.


Order. Members in the bottom corner should give their Colleague an opportunity to put his question.


Having witnessed a fair degree of discrimination against the Orange Order, including the decision to exclude the institution from the Civic Forum, can the First and the Deputy First Minister indicate how they intend to celebrate the 311th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne? This is particularly relevant when one considers that the concept of civil and religious liberties was a direct result of the outcome of that battle.
On what basis did Mr Mallon, as the Deputy First Minister, decide not to meet Portadown Orangemen? Can the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure us that no further concessions will be made to Sinn Feín/IRA terrorist-fronted residents’ groups during the forthcoming celebrations?


I would be very glad if parades- related issues were the responsibility of this House and of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but at present those decisions lie with other bodies. Both myself and the Deputy First Minister have, on a number of occasions, made clear our several positions and views on the operation of that body, and I will not repeat them now. As to what one does on a public holiday, most Members will find their own way of taking advantage of this time.

Promoting Social Inclusion

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to provide details of plans for the implementation of existing promoting social inclusion reports.
(AQO1356/00)


There are currently two reports promoting social inclusion — one on travellers and the other on teenage pregnancy. The working group report on travellers was issued to voluntary, statutory and other organisations for consultation in December.
Separate arrangements are being made for focus consultations with travellers. After consultation, all the recommendations and the views that have been expressed will be considered, and a report on the way forward will be published. The report by the working group on teenage pregnancy, entitled ‘Myths and Reality’, was issued for consultation on 7 November 2000. Consultation ended on 31 March, and the comments that were received are being evaluated by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.


Can the Deputy First Minister tell me when the reports will be finalised? Is there a timescale? I appreciate that he has given that information for ‘Myths and Reality’, but is there a timescale for the report on travellers?


The Member is right. The Programme for Government commits us to consult during 2001. Future priorities must be tackled by promoting the social inclusion element of New TSN. On 4 May 2001, we will initiate public consultation on future priorities. A document will be issued, and the consultation period will end in August. The Executive will use the outcome of the consultation to determine what the next priorities should be, and we will announce new cross- departmental priorities in November.

European Cohesion Forum

10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if an invitation to participate in the European Cohesion Forum has been received.
(AQO1355/00)


An invitation has been received from the European Commission to attend the forum that will be held in Brussels in May to discuss the Second Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion in the European Union. Northern Ireland has been allocated eight places at the forum. That reflects the importance to Northern Ireland of European cohesion policies and, in particular, the contribution to the structural funds and peace programmes that have been made over the last few years. The wide range of Northern Ireland interests in the second cohesion report will be reflected by the number of Departments that will be represented at the forum. However, the level of representation is yet to be determined.


The Member will not be able to ask a supplementary question because the time is up.


Mr Speaker, I am very happy with the comprehensive answer that I received.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is really a supplementary point to the one raised by Mr Dodds. I think you said that it would be unwise to work on reports in a newspaper about Mr McGuinness’s participation in the IRA. I just wanted to remind the First Minister that he gave us a much better assessment when he said that with the exception of —[Interruption].


Order. That was not a point of order. The Member was taking advantage. I stand by my view that you cannot believe half of the lies that you read in the newspapers but that you can believe at least half of the truth that you read in them. I do not think that there was a point of order to answer.

Culture, Arts and Leisure
Safe Spectator Facilities

Question five, in the name of Mr Gibson, has been transferred to the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers.


1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the progress being made to promote safe spectator facilities at major sporting venues across Northern Ireland.
(AQO1358/00)


Excellent progress is being made, under the safe sportsground scheme, on improving the health and safety aspects of spectator facilities at our major sportsgrounds. Work is underway at 23 venues. Thirteen are soccer venues, nine are GAA venues and one is a rugby venue. Expenditure of around £2 million was made by the end of the 2000/01 financial year. Awards have been allocated for improvement work on a further 11 venues — eight soccer venues and three GAA venues. Work on those will start as soon as possible.


Can the Minister confirm that, over the 1990s, the premier facilities for each sport were identified by representatives of those sports and that work has been carried out for rugby at Ravenhill, for hockey at Blaris, for soccer at Windsor Park and for hurling at Casement Park. Will he confirm that the only major project that has yet to be started is for Gaelic football at the athletic grounds in Armagh? Will the Minister take a personal interest in that project so that major Gaelic sporting matches can return to Armagh city?


The Executive and the Assembly found the money for a safe sports ground scheme because they recognised the glaring need in football, gaelic and rugby grounds. It would have taken over £20 million to bring the various stadiums up to the standard recommended by the Taylor report. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has made a start, but there is still much to be done.
Northern Ireland experienced a serious shortfall during direct rule. For example, we did not get any football trust money for soccer grounds, because there was no one here arguing for it. All the money went to England, Scotland and Wales — Northern Ireland got nothing. That is one of the reasons why the Executive and the Assembly have taken the matter forward.
I have been in discussion with representatives of the GAA, not specifically about Armagh, but about various grounds, and I will take on board what the Member said. I realise that there is a need at Armagh; there is also a need at Casement Park and at a number of other grounds.


In the light of the ticket fiasco in relation to the forthcoming Irish Cup final between Linfield and Glentoran, does the Minister agree that there should be an investigation into why crowd restrictions have been imposed by the Irish Football Association (IFA) when health and safety officials have stated publicly that they have not proposed such restrictions?


The Irish Cup final next Saturday is specifically a matter for the IFA. I understand that the IFA advised, and had been in discussion with, the health and safety executive of Belfast City Council. The IFA proposed a ticket limit of 10,800, evenly divided between the two teams, and Belfast City Council’s health and safety department agreed with that. However, I understand that officials from Belfast City Council who visited Windsor Park on 27 April agreed that there was potential for some increase in the number of tickets available. There was also a suggestion — opposed by the clubs — that there would be an even bigger increase if the kick-off were at 11 o’clock. It is a matter for the IFA in discussions with Belfast City Council. There is to be another meeting tomorrow, and we will know more then.
On the matter of inquiries, the IFA is the responsible governing body. How it runs its business is a matter for it. I can, however, refer to the soccer strategy for Northern Ireland that I have undertaken and which is ongoing. A number of issues have come to the fore through those discussions, and I have no doubt that the issues of the IFA, Windsor Park and ticketing will be discussed.


Can the Minister tell us what funding will be available to promote safer spectator facilities at sporting venues such as first division football clubs to bring them up to an acceptable standard? Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ards Football Club on winning the first division championship and getting into the premier league? Does he recognise that the club will need some funding and assistance in relation to that?


As has been detailed on a number of occasions in the House, there is a grand total of £5·3 million available over three years: £3 million in year one — of which £2 million has been spent; £1·5 million in year two and, currently, a projected £800,000 for year three. The Department does not know how much money, if any, will be coming from the football foundation. That is the amount available, and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is administering the expenditure in conjunction with representatives of the various sports, health and safety personnel and the RUC.
I am delighted to see that Ards Football Club has been promoted back to the premier division. As a category A club, Ards will be eligible to bid, along with all of the other clubs, for the available funding.

Visitor Amenities

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline what provision is being made for the additional promotion of visitor amenities.
(AQO1327/00)


There is no universally accepted definition of a visitor amenity, but what definitions there are show that such amenities cover some areas that are outside the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. However, the Department is currently looking at developing a workable definition of visitor amenities that will enable it to specify and plan its responsibilities in the context of a heritage policy and strategy for Northern Ireland.
I am conscious of the important contribution that visitor amenities make to the economy of Northern Ireland, and my Department’s corporate strategy recognises the need to promote them.
We have committed ourselves to the key task of designing and implementing a strategy for the development of visitor amenities. I will be examining the scope for their promotion and development in the context of the recently completed local museum and heritage review which I expect to receive shortly.


I understand that a joint bid by the Minister’s Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has been made for European funding under the cultural tourism initiative. How will this funding benefit the promotion of centres? Perhaps I could address the Minister’s lack of definition by highlighting the St Patrick’s Heritage Centre as an example of such an amenity. How can funding be directed, and how will it be applied to support the promotion of such centres as tourist attractions?


I concur that the St Patrick’s Centre — which, as Mr McGrady knows, I have visited — is a very impressive recent addition to the visitor amenity estate. "Visitor amenity" is the term used to define any service or facility that is used by, or exists for the benefit of visitors. A position paper on visitor amenities was commissioned in June 2000, and a study from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, which compiled an inventory of visitor amenities attractions, was published in May 2000. There are over 400 facilities covering six categories. They are owned by a variety of Departments, local councils or private owners.
We need to develop an agreed strategy in the context of a broad partnership. When we work out what we want to do, the European funding will, it is to be hoped, allow us to implement that strategy. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee is also examining the possibility of cultural tourism. All those elements feed into one another and provide what I have no doubt will be a very important adjunct to our tourism potential.


Does the Minister agree that Carrickfergus Castle fulfils many of the criteria that he has talked about, as it is a facility which will attract visitors to Northern Ireland, and promote further visits? The castle has a long history associated with the political establishment of Northern Ireland. In fact, in the early days, Carrickfergus was the capital of Northern Ireland. Can the Minister ensure that Carrickfergus Castle will be considered for any European funding?


I have already mentioned that there are over 400 facilities, covering six categories. One of the categories will be historical buildings and monuments, and Carrickfergus Castle is a very important historic building. It represents one of the key parts of our visitor amenities estate. It is also owned and managed by the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service. That indicates the need for partnership — it is not simply for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to determine how Carrickfergus Castle should be promoted and what extra facilities it requires. It is a question of partnership and, therefore, of cohesion among all the owners and managers, and that means creating an agreed strategy. At present we are actively working on this strategy, and it will be informed by the local museums and heritage review.

Angling (Concessions)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether there are concessions for the following people who wish to become involved in the sport of angling (a) the disabled; (b) pensioners; (c) the young and (d) the unemployed.
(AQO1338/00)


I am responsible for approving licence fees submitted by the Fisheries Conservancy Board but not those set by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. There are no concessionary licence rates for disabled people, pensioners or the unemployed living within the Fisheries Conservancy Board’s area. Young people under 18 years of age do not require a licence to fish. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 amended the board’s by-law making powers to enable the board to introduce concessionary licences for particular classes of persons, if it so wishes.
It is for the board to consider whether and when to introduce concessionary licence fees. However, as I indicated in my evidence to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee during the passage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, I believe very strongly in the arguments for concessions for disabled anglers. Accordingly, I have provided additional moneys this year to help offset any loss the board may incur should it decide to introduce concessionary fees for people with disabilities.
In addition, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure issues permits to allow anglers to fish in the public angling estate. Disabled anglers benefit from concessionary permit rates, and young people under eighteen years of age can also fish for game fish in the Department’s waters at a reduced rate without a coarse fishing permit. There are no permit concessions for pensioners or the unemployed.


I welcome the initiatives the Minister has mentioned. Are there any plans for future initiatives, particularly for pensioners and the unemployed? Will there be any initiatives from the Minister’s Department on disabled access to some of the other fishing areas where there is currently no access?


With regard to the disabled, being able to access the waters is one of the key factors. Many of the waters in the angling estate are accessible to disabled anglers. Those are listed in the Department’s 2001 angling guide. It is a matter for ongoing consideration, and we continually bid for moneys when appropriate at each round. One of the key areas that we are looking to bid for is in the provision of accessibility to waters for those suffering a disability.
As far as permits are concerned, I must make the point that they are already discounted by roughly 50%. There is a 50% discount on a standard permit. The current cost of the permit — £53 per year — is roughly half of what it takes to run the public angling estate. Much has been done, but I fear that, under the current financial conditions, I do not have the latitude to make any further reductions.

Centrally Located Public Swimming Pool

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to undertake a feasibility study with a view to providing a centrally located 50m public swimming pool in Northern Ireland.
(AQO1336/00)


Responsibility for leisure provision lies with district councils. Each district council has a statutory obligation under article 10 of the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to secure provision of adequate facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities for its area.
In addition to provision made at district council level, plans are well advanced for a Northern Ireland institute of sport at the Jordanstown campus of the University of Ulster, which is being developed as part of the network of United Kingdom sports institutes. Subject to costings and a detailed appraisal, the aspiration is to provide a 50m eight-lane competition pool with adequate spectator provision as an integral part of the sports institute at the Jordanstown site.


In my oral question, I specifically referred to the central location for a 50m pool. This is a follow-on to a request made by Newry and Mourne councillor, Pat Toner, in 1999 and taken up again recently by council. He highlighted that approximately three million people live within the Newry/Warrenpoint catchment area. Given the fact that there are a total of sixteen 50m pools in England and Scotland and that 50m pools in Loughborough, Swansea and Stirling have been successful in obtaining lottery funding, will the Minister undertake to have his Department meet with the National Lottery to seek its support for the provision of a 50m pool in Northern Ireland?


I repeat that it is planned to have a 50m pool as part of the new United Kingdom network sports institute at Jordanstown. There has been widespread consultation throughout with Swim Ireland. As I am sure you are aware, swimming is an all-Ireland sport and is organised on an all-Ireland basis. There is a 50m pool currently under construction in Limerick, and another one is planned at Abbotstown in Dublin.
Northern Ireland is, therefore, an ideal location. Our aim is to provide, as part of the UK Sports Institute, a centre for world-class training and support services. It is felt that our talented athletes would be best served by the establishment of an institute in conjunction with the University of Ulster at Jordanstown.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sílim go gcaithfimid bheith iontach cúramach céillí maidir le cúrsaí airgid agus áiseanna spóirt ar fud na hÉireann.
I am aware of the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of public spending on sports facilities in Ireland. I welcome the Minister’s comments on developments at Limerick, Abbotstown and Jordanstown. Will the Minister enter into formal discussions with his ministerial Colleague in the rest of Ireland, Dr Jim McDaid, to try to ensure that citizens and sportsmen in the Six Counties can make full use of Stadium Ireland should it come about?


I am not aware of the current state of play in regard to that stadium. I am more concerned with proposals for a new stadium in Northern Ireland. The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has the overall responsibility for developing each sport. In conjunction with the UK Sports Institute, it has determined the way forward for such developments as the new institute for sporting excellence at Jordanstown.


Lisburn Borough Council closely considered the possibility of providing a 50m pool when it was planning its new leisure complex. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that complex is the best, not just in Northern Ireland, but throughout the UK. One of our concerns about the provision of a 50m pool was the ongoing revenue costs of such a facility.
We considered that while there are many grants available for the capital cost of the provision of the facility, it would be grossly unfair to lumber a local authority with such massive revenue costs. I suggest that the Minister, in his deliberations of this issue, closely considers the impact of the revenue costs on any local authority.


I agree with Mr Close’s very important point. Grants are available for capital provision, but it is the ongoing revenue costs which often cause the difficulties. It is also a matter which, for example, Belfast City Council has considered in the past. The cost of managing and running a 50m pool was considered to be prohibitive, not just by Lisburn Borough Council but by other councils. Newry and Mourne District Council has had a long-term aspiration to provide a 50m pool, but I do not believe that it has any immediate plans. Therefore, I agree with Mr Close that revenue consequences often determine whether provision is possible. It would be difficult to cover the running costs of a 50m pool unless, for example, it were built as part of the UK Sports Institute campus at Jordanstown.

Arts Sector Cultural Quarter

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what grants are available to those who are working within the arts sector to achieve a cultural quarter as detailed in the Programme for Government.
(AQO1350/00)


10. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what progress has been made in respect of the Programme for Government commitment to establish, by June 2001, a forum to co-ordinate and promote the cultural quarter concept of designated areas for locating cultural activity with a view to creating synergy and co-operation.
(AQO1361/00)


With the Speaker’s permission, I will answer questions 6 and 10 together. There is no specific grant programme in the arts sector for the development of cultural quarters generally. However, the Laganside Corporation in Belfast is making funding available for the development of the cultural dimension of the city’s Cathedral Quarter managed workspace initiative.
The Programme for Government provides for the establishment before June 2001 of a forum to co-ordinate and promote the cultural, arts and leisure dimension of the cultural quarter concept. My Department is developing this plan through a working group, chaired by my permanent secretary, which is considering local strategies for culture, arts and leisure. The working group is developing draft guidance on local strategies including the promotion of the cultural quarter concept at local levels throughout Northern Ireland. This will be presented to a forum, which has been provisionally arranged for 22 May 2001.


The Minister might be aware that at present there are advanced plans to create such a quarter in Derry — the Cathedral Quarter adjacent to St Columb’s Cathedral in the Diamond. His reply will come as a disappointment to those people, but I welcome his comments on the forum which is to make a response by June 2002. I look forward to that.


The cultural quarter concept will be readily adaptable, not simply to Belfast. I am aware that Londonderry has a very strong tradition of cultural development. An important infrastructure is also developing; the Playhouse Theatre, the Nerve Centre, the Verbal Arts Centre and the new theatre are some examples. There is also a new theatre at Ebrington. A very strong case can be made for the City of Derry, and my Department will be happy to discuss any matters with the corporation that Mrs Courtney or others may wish to propose.


Will the Minister detail what grants will be made available to those who are working in the arts sector to promote exchanges with cultural quarters in other countries such as the proposed Nashville visual arts project?


I am not aware that any funding is specifically set aside for exchanges between cultural quarters. However, the Arts Council is the funding body for arts, and it can address such applications. If Dr Adamson speaks to me afterwards we can work out a way forward, but I am not clear which cultural quarters he is considering. No funding immediately springs to mind.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the steps he is taking within his Department to contain the threat of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1324/00)


Unfortunately, since my previous reply to Mr Ford on this matter on 20 March 2001, the foot-and-mouth situation has worsened. My Department continues to be represented on the interdepartmental co- ordinating group under Ms Rodger’s chairmanship. That group has met 15 times since the beginning of March and continues to play a key role in ensuring a consistent and cross-departmental approach to the problem. My first response to the crisis was to close the public angling estate and to call for the postponement or cancellation of sporting and other events that might risk spreading the virus. Before Easter, the Executive agreed revised guidelines which focused attention on the fortress-farm approach but allowed other pursuits and events to return to near-normality. I have been impressed and grateful that so many organisers have acted responsibly in abiding by those guidelines.


I join the Minister in recognising the responsible attitude shown by many people in the way that they have conducted normal business — or amended normal business — because of this outbreak of foot- and-mouth disease. Current guidelines from his Colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, suggest that complacency is still the greatest threat. What is the Minister doing to ensure that anglers and others are not becoming complacent three weeks after the last outbreaks while the threat still exists?


I am conscious that I do not want to stray into the responsibilities of my Colleague, Ms Rodgers. The Executive and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have driven awareness forward, emphasising the importance of fortress farming and stressing that this is not simply a matter that affects farmers. It affects everyone. We should ensure that complacency is not creeping in. That is why we took measures in relation to the public angling estate. We closed it initially, but there has now been a limited re-opening. We are constantly keeping those areas under review. The interdepartmental group has met on 15 occasions, and a number of special Executive Committee meetings have also been held to monitor the situation and to reinforce the fact that we are all involved in fortress farming. The important thing to do is to eradicate the disease.

Northern Ireland Football Teams Supporters Clubs

8. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to make representation to the Irish Football Association (IFA) to establish an official co-ordinated network of Northern Ireland football team supporters clubs.
(AQO1314/00)


The IFA already recognises the need to have an official, co-ordinated approach to Northern Ireland football team supporters. The IFA regards the amalgamation of official Northern Ireland supporters clubs as the potential umbrella for genuine national team supporters clubs. The IFA and the amalgamation of official Northern Ireland supporters clubs are continuing to work in partnership to affiliate clubs that are not currently represented by this group.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)


I welcome the Minister’s response. I am sure he agrees that such a move, when it comes to fruition, will greatly help to curtail the problems that the IFA has had, on occasion, at international matches. In conclusion and to avail myself of the same leeway as that allowed to Mr Shannon, I invite the Minister, if he wishes, to attend the Irish Junior Cup Final between Dergview and Irvinestown, to be played in Ballinamallard.


I thank Mr Hussey for his invitation to the Junior Cup Final in Ballinamallard. I am not aware if I have an official invitation yet, but I look forward to receiving one. If the diary is free, I will certainly look forward to seeing him there.
The amalgamation of the Northern Ireland football supporters’ clubs will give a very important focus for supporters of the Northern Ireland team. It will ensure that constantly and continually we have growing and thriving support as well as a welcoming, family-friendly atmosphere at internationals at home and abroad.

Rivers

9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline his Department’s role in ensuring rivers are free from debris.
(AQO1334/00)


My Department’s statutory responsibilities are essentially limited to a duty of care on its properties — we must take reasonable measures to prevent danger to the public or damage to property. For inland waterways this applies to those sections of the abandoned Lagan navigation, Coalisland canal and Upper Bann navigation, which remain in Government ownership.
Specifically, in relation to the Lagan towpath between Belfast and Lisburn, which is owned and maintained by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, my Department makes an annual financial contribution to Lagan Valley Regional Park costs for wardens to provide a litter clearance service. In general, my Department takes every available opportunity to liaise with other statutory authorities to encourage debris-free rivers, particularly where angling tourism is involved.


Does the Minister accept that rivers full of polythene bags and other household debris are not acceptable to either tourists or anglers? Will he endeavour, along with the other statutory agencies, to ensure that mechanisms are put in place so that rivers are cleaned on a regular basis, not on a very occasional basis?


Initially, I must point out that responsibility for removing debris from watercourses lies with the landowner concerned. The Department is involved only where it is the landowner — for example, through the Lagan Valley Regional Park, on the towpath alone. The Rivers Agency has powers to remove debris from designated watercourses, but not for visual reasons — only for flow streams. It is primarily for the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment to take action against river pollution. One must always look to the landowner. He is responsible for the river that runs through his land. He is responsibile for the removal of debris.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Before I call Mr Fee, I advise Members that question 3 has been withdrawn

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Newry and Mourne Area)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assessment she has made of the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on rural communities, particularly in Newry and Mourne, and to make a statement.
(AQO1359/00)


My officials began making assessments of the possible impact of foot-and-mouth disease on the agrifood sector in Northern Ireland in the wake of the discovery of the first case in England, based on a range of scenarios — from a few confirmed cases in Northern Ireland to a much more widespread outbreak. If the disease is contained at its current level of four confirmed cases, and exports can resume relatively quickly, the Northern Ireland agrifood industry overall is not likely to incur significant damage and could even gain slightly by being able to sell in markets closed to the rest of the UK. However, some individual farmers and other businesses will be adversely affected, even in this optimistic scenario.
If the disease were to escalate here, the impact could be extremely serious with an estimated cost to the agrifood sector from a prolonged and widespread outbreak potentially rising to over £120 million over a 12-month period. Until the most recent cases in Counties Tyrone and Antrim, our assessment that the impact of the disease on the community in Newry and Mourne was marginally greater than in the rest of Northern Ireland, with restrictions on livestock movement and a ban on meat and dairy exports lasting approximately three weeks longer than elsewhere. Unfortunately, the most recent cases mean that the whole of Northern Ireland is now on the same footing as Newry and Mourne.


The Minister has been to the forefront of efforts to combat the crisis every day for months. However, I ask her to consider again the arrangements that are in place, particularly in areas such as Newry and Mourne, which have been under restriction for the longest time. Will the Minister formalise a welfare slaughter scheme? Does she recognise that the requirement to pay the costs of private veterinary practitioners is causing hurt, pain and anger? Because of the restrictions, some farmers have livestock that they simply cannot sell and from which they can make no income. In south Armagh, one livestock sale has lost a turnover of £2 million compared to the same period last year. What will the Minister do about such cases?


I remind Mr Fee of the ruling that the Speaker made this morning. Members may ask several questions, but the Minister may choose to answer only one.


I thank the Member for his opening remarks. I shall deal with the question about welfare, which is a pressing issue. As the Member is aware, we have already run a scheme for pigs for those caught up in one of the movement restrictions associated with the outbreak in south Armagh. Evidence of the need for another one is emerging. However, I must be satisfied that such a scheme is justified on animal welfare grounds, as opposed to purely commercial grounds. I will run a scheme if it is justified. I am considering the issue, and I know that there is concern about it.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has reduced the amounts that are paid. Pigs now attract a maximum of £50 per animal in welfare culls, and £30 per sow. Those prices are considerably less than the original prices. The reasons behind those reductions will also apply in Northern Ireland. In extreme welfare situations, a scheme may be necessary, but I need to assess whether it would be used for welfare or commercial reasons. I will come to a decision shortly.


When will the Minister be able to announce that farm-to-farm sales may recommence, as we have had no more cases of foot-and-mouth disease? I understand that there must be a period of 30 days following the last case before there can be any relaxation.
We all appreciate the fact that farmers can move cattle and pigs to abattoirs. However, it is not possible to move weaned calves to pasture for welfare reasons. I am sure that the Minister knows that there is no movement of cull sows. I welcome the movement of over-30-months cattle to Glenavy. When might such movements take place?


I shall deal with the question on farm-to-farm sales. It is a major issue, and it has been raised with me by public representatives and by individuals. The Member will be aware that I must balance finely the need to be careful that we do not spread the disease — the virus is still present among the sheep flock — with the need to alleviate the plight of farmers. I recognise that some farmers are in a difficult situation because the markets are closed, and there are no farm-to-farm sales either.
I am keeping the situation under review. Every day that I come into the Department, I ask for an update on the situation, including advice from the vets on whether further movements are possible. However, whatever I do, my priority is not to risk a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore I am aware of it; I am sympathetic to it, and I will keep it under review.


Will the Minister tell the House when the markets are likely to be reopened? Farmers need a proper pricing of their stock.


The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development closed the markets originally. They are now being closed under an EU Directive. I am not in a position to give a date for reopening, because this is a matter for the European Commission. I know that it is a problem. Apart from the problem that mart closures create for farmers, it also creates a huge problem for the marts themselves in that they may be put out of business.
I suspect that there will be other easements before the reopening of marts takes place, because that will mean that cattle, sheep and other animals will be mixing together. I have to say — off the top of my head and without veterinary advice on the matter — that reopening will be well down the line.

Decommissioning Scheme for Fishermen

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline when she will make an announcement on a decommissioning scheme for fishermen and to make a statement.
(AQO1328/00)


The pursuit of a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme is a high priority, and work is continuing on its development. When I met with the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee recently, we discussed a draft scheme based on a tendering system by vessel owners for the disposal of their fishing vessels. The eligibility requirements would include that the vessel must be at least 12m long; it must have fished at least 75 days in each of the preceeding two years, and it must be at least 10 years old. Bids would be ranked according to vessel capacity units multiplied by the number of days at sea.
Based on the bids received, the Department would set separate strike prices for vessels considered to be mainly targeting white fish and nephrops. Successful applicants would receive a grant based on the strike price when their vessel was decommissioned.
The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has made some comments, which I wish to consider. Nevertheless, I intend to announce a scheme as soon as I obtain legal clearance.


I thank the Minister for her reply, and I hope that the decommissioning scheme — a conservation measure — is implemented as quickly as possible. Against the backcloth of the terrible problem suffered by the farming community, the other conservation measure adopted by the common fisheries policy has gone unnoticed. Today is the last day of the six weeks of inactivity that the white fish fleet in Northern Ireland has suffered. Will the Minister consider the parallel situation between compensating farmers and other businesses in respect of Government-imposed restrictions and applying the same principle of effective Government — in the light of EU-imposed restrictions — to the white fish fleet industry, which has not been able to leave port for the past six weeks and has had no income?


The positions are not comparable. Some fishing has taken place outside the restricted areas; the boats have not been tied up. The situation is not the same, because fishermen hunt a wild quarry and can continue to do so even though they are restricted — until tomorrow, as the Member rightly says — from fishing for cod in certain areas of the Irish Sea and the North Channel.
Farmers whose livestock has been compulsorily slaughtered are compensated for the capital value of their animals and not for the consequential loss. As Members will be aware, I am finalising a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels that will compensate fishermen for their assets in the form of fishing vessels and associated licences. However, I have no plans to offer consequential compensation to the fishing industry.
In other words, a farmer who loses all his cattle has been deprived of the means of an income. Compensation is payable, because the Department has put him out of business for the time being. If a fishing vessel is decommissioned and the fisherman is put out of business, he would be compensated for that. However, as in the case of farmers, the fisherman would not be paid for consequential loss.


Can the Minister give any indication of the number of fishermen who wish to take up the decommissioning scheme? Will the Minister pursue the repayment of grants given for boats in the past from those who are decommissioning? Will the Minister agree that it is very important that only a certain element of decommissioning should take place so that the core part of the industry and its business can be retained?


It is impossible to say how many fishermen will apply until the decommissioning scheme is up and running. I can tell you that £5million has been allocated for it, but I will have to wait until we get bids.
The acoustics on that side of the Chamber are very bad. I could not hear the second part of the question.


The second part of the question was about grants. I understand that those who qualify for decommissioning have to pay back part of the grant that they received for their boats over the years. I am quite concerned about that, and I would like some clarification on the matter. Does the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development intend to ask for all that money, or part of it, to be paid back when the boat is decommissioned? It may leave those who have decommissioned with very little money.


I do not have any discretion with regard to paying back grants. Those are the regulations. One grant was paid to maintain a fishing vessel or to keep a fisherman in business, and the other will be paid to allow him to go out of business. It is not possible to give him the grant to decommission his vessel and at the same time to allow him to retain a grant intended to keep him in business.

Loughs Agency

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline what work her Department is engaged in with the Government in the Republic of Ireland to ensure the Loughs Agency meets the objectives set for it by the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO1360/00)


The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development regularly engages with its co-sponsoring Department in the South, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, on matters relating to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The Departments are currently bringing forward parallel legislation to extend the functions of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (NorthernIreland) Order 1999. This legislation will provide the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission with powers to licence and to develop aquaculture in the Foyle and Carlingford areas.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development also works closely with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources on various operational matters relating to the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The Departments ensure that the agency has sufficient funding and staff to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. My Department also engages with its co-sponsoring Department in the South on various Loughs Agency policy matters. I refer the Member to my earlier statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission which took place in Dublin on 6April 2001.


I would like to have a clearer understanding of when the enabling legislation will be laid. In the light of the statement this morning it seems that many issues are outstanding. When will the enabling legislation be in place?


I am very anxious to proceed with the legislation as soon as possible. There are some outstanding issues which my officials and the Dublin officials are attempting to resolve. NorthernIreland needs an appeals procedure to match that in the South. At present our appeals procedure allows an appeal from the aggrieved person who has been refused a licence. It does not allow an appeal from a third party who objected to the licence and whose objection was then rejected. We are looking at that part of the legislation and trying to resolve that. If you were to take a judicial review, complications would also arise due to the fact that the two different jurisdictions are involved in a North/South body. The answer to the Member’s question is that I am anxious to proceed as soon as possible and will do so as soon as these issues are resolved.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Farmers’ Losses)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline her policy on compensation for losses sustained by farmers and rural businesses as a result of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1322/00)


Compensation is paid to owners of animals that have been affected by the disease, have been in contact with affected animals or have been exposed to the infection. It can also be paid for a limited range of materials — such as carcasses, fodder or feeding stock — that have been directly implicated as a disease risk. At the request of the Executive, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has set up an interdepartmental group to examine the economic impact of the foot-and-mouth crisis in Northern Ireland. This group, which will report to the Executive, is considering what practical measures might be feasible and appropriate to support those sectors affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, taking account of local circumstances.


I thank the Minister for her response and her ongoing work in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, but I specifically ask her to look in greater detail at the issue of consequential loss. Take, for example, the case of livestock marts. They are not closed because they have no customers but because of an edict issued by the Minister herself and subsequently backed by Brussels. Farm businesses, which have been encouraged to diversify by the Minister’s Department, are further examples. Their suffering is, in some senses, even worse than that of traditional farms on their own. If it is possible for the Scottish and Welsh Executives to take some action on consequential compensation, is it not also possible for it to happen here?


I am aware — as, I am sure, are the Members — that consequential loss is a very difficult issue. Pinpointing the assistance necessary for the different sectors and areas is extremely difficult. GB and the Republic of Ireland are likewise facing a tough time in defining where any support might be given.
There is a hierarchy of need that has to be addressed. There are businesses, such as the marts, which have been totally closed down. There are businesses that have not been closed down but that have suffered greatly with a substantial loss of income. There are resource implications in any decision, and it would be a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel to make an assessment and come to a view on what would be possible. That is why the Executive are looking at the issue of consequential loss.
I am very much aware of the issues raised by Mr Ford, particularly in the area of rural development, where people have been getting businesses off the ground. It is an extremely difficult area to deal with, and I can only say that the Executive are looking at several options. I will not go through them all now, but we have considered areas such as rates, small firm loan guarantees and revenue. I am sure that those were covered earlier by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.


My question fits somewhere into the "hierarchy of need" that the Minister mentioned. Does the Minister have any plans to give financial aid to farmers whose breeding stock has had to be slaughtered as a result of the ban on movement and sales?


That question comes into the area of consequential loss. I recognise that this is an extremely difficult situation for farmers whose breeding stock has been slaughtered. My departmental advisers have been in touch with all the farmers whose stock has been culled and are advising them on how the situation should be tackled. In relation to consequential compensation, however, I am afraid that my answer has to remain the same as before, except to say that advice will be available to farmers on finance and on how to get their businesses up and going again.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In relation to consequential loss, farmers have so far taken severe losses, and they are now expected to pay vets for visits so that their livestock can be moved from their premises for grazing. I am unsure whether that is being paid for in Britain or whether farmers here are being asked to pay for that separately. It is a consequential cost, so I ask the Minister whether that can be taken into account and farmers given compensation for that loss.


I am aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has decided to shoulder some of the burden of the veterinary certification costs involved in issuing movement licences. This is not happening in relation to all licences, but I am seeking clarification on that matter. I will look urgently at providing a similar facility in Northern Ireland, but that has public expenditure implications, and I need to be sure that it is justified and affordable. This will take time, and in the meantime, farmers are responsible for paying for any veterinary certification that they require.
This is a difficult situation, not just for the farming community, but for many other sectors. There is a price tag and, unfortunately, we do not have a bottomless pit of money. I sympathise and understand that the situation is difficult for farmers. Allowing some movement was an easement for the farmers, but now I have the problem of paying for the licences.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Rate Relief for Businesses)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail discussions she has had with the Minister of Finance and Personnel regarding rate relief for businesses that have suffered consequential losses as a result of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1321/00)


I have raised the issue of rate relief with the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I understand that any changes to the existing rating system would require primary legislation, and that would take some time to achieve.


I thank the Minister for that brief reply. I understand that a rate deferment scheme has been considered and discussed by the interdepartmental co-ordinating group. Can the Minister give more information to the House on that? In talking about consequential loss and the width to which it extends, even into the industrial sector, does she accept the broad principle that there is a need for a hardship package for Northern Ireland and that it should be paid for from the contingency fund?


The response to the Member’s question is a matter for the Minister of Finance and Personnel, not for myself. I agree with what has been said about the hardship being suffered and about the contingency fund. We will be making a very strong case for the contingency fund to be used. At a meeting some time ago in Downing Street with the Prime Minister I flagged up the point that it will be very difficult for the Northern Ireland block to cope with all of the expenditure that is arising. I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will also be making a strong case on our behalf for the contingency fund to be used.


The Minister said earlier that the European Union had banned the livestock marts from carrying out their business. Has the Minister contacted the European Union to ask it to support consequential compensation for the livestock marts?


I have not been in touch with the European Union on that specific issue. I hope that the European Union will be making a contribution towards some of our expenditure. However, in relation to contacting the European Commission, the Member will be aware that, as Northern Ireland is not a member state, any contact would be a national matter and would be dealt with by the UK Minister.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease ("Fortress Island" Approach)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail what action can be taken to develop a "fortress island" approach to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease from Great Britain or elsewhere in future.
(AQO1341/00)


I recognise that tackling foot-and-mouth disease is an all-island issue, and that is why I have had frequent discussions with Joe Walsh, both through the North/South Ministerial Council and bilaterally. There is also constant liaison at official level. Any attempt to develop such an approach must obviously focus on the points of entry from GB, where the disease is rampant.
We have controls in place at all ports and airports, and these arrangements are kept under constant review. We have vehicle disinfectant facilities at all ports, and these have been upgraded by installing mechanical facilities to increase the efficiency of the operations. We also have facilities available at all ports and airports for misting people with disinfectant. People have been are advised of the existence of those facilities and their availability for use on a voluntary basis.
I restate my strongly held view that the front line of defence lies with the farmers themselves. We can do whatever is possible at Government level, but each farmer in Northern Ireland has a personal responsibility to act to protect his or her own farm and thereby contribute to the overall objective of beating the disease.


I thank the Minister for her answer. Given the nature of this disease, the fact that it can be carried by birds and wildlife and that our rivers and lakes cross the border, could more be done by looking at an all-Ireland policy on animal health? Should more work have been done with Joe Walsh, and should the Minister not have taken more advice from officials in Dublin rather than those in London?


I assure Ms Gildernew that I do not take advice from London or Dublin. I take advice from my officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. On the issue of an animal health strategy, I inform Ms Gildernew that as early as November of last year, at a North/South Ministerial Council with Joe Walsh, we decided to begin the process of bringing forward a joint animal health strategy for the island of Ireland. Our officials have been working on that fortuitously, because the foot-and-mouth crisis has shown that this is an all-Ireland issue, as the Member pointed out. Bugs and viruses do not recognise borders, and streams and mountains cross the border. The fact that we recognised that some months before we were faced with this problem indicates that we were thinking along the right lines even before the crisis erupted.


There is a matter of concern. Prior to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease a number of farmers were wiped out by brucellosis in their livestock. There seems to be disparity between the amount of money that they got in compensation for their cattle and the compensation being paid to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease. This is a very big problem. When both sets of farmers are allowed to restock, they will all be competing, but not on a level playing field, given the differences in compensation.


The compensation for brucellosis and for foot-and-mouth disease has always been the same. That is the market value, as assessed by our valuers, and a farmer who is not happy with the valuation that is offered has a right to independent valuation. That has always been the position. Many farmers have gone for independent valuation, and I am aware of one case, at least, in which the independent valuation was lower than ours.

Assembly Commission
Assembly Use of Fair Trade Goods

1. asked the Assembly Commission what plans there are for increasing the range of fair trade goods used in the Assembly.
(AQO1325/00)


The Assembly Commission and the Catering and Functions Committee have been actively exploring ways of promoting fair trade goods in the Assembly. We have been working closely with War on Want, which is the leading fair trade campaigner in Northern Ireland. The Commission has also recently re-let the catering contract that commits Mount Charles to purchase fair trade goods where possible. Mount Charles has already been successful in sourcing fair trade sugar and coffee and will, it is to be hoped, be able to purchase fair trade tea in the near future.
Members may be aware that a very successful photocall was held in the Great Hall to promote the fair trade campaign. It involved members of the Commission, the Catering and Functions Committee, representatives from War on Want, Mount Charles and the Tear Fund group from Queen’s University.
War on Want has been invited to provide an exhibition in Parliament Buildings, commencing today, to promote the fair trade principles among Members and staff. It is being held at the east staircase on the first floor and will provide Members with an opportunity to view the range of products available and learn more about the fair trade concept.


I applaud the actions of the Commission and Mount Charles in promoting fair trade so far. Mr Wells referred to the exhibition, which I trust Members will visit during the course of its time here.
As fair trade is clearly the policy of the Assembly Commission, is it right that such an exhibition should be tucked away in a rarely-visited corner of the building? Would it not be better if, tomorrow, it were relocated either in the Great Hall or in the canteen, where it would be seen by more people, and help spread the message that the Commission believes in?


The Member is absolutely correct — the Commission, as individuals, and as a body, are committed to the principles of fair trade. At its meeting on 23 October 2000 the Assembly Commission agreed that the first floor area of the east staircase could be used for exhibitions lasting up to two weeks. The designated areas provide sufficient space for a variety of different types of exhibitions without compromising the efficient functioning of the building.
Mr Ford will be aware that there are many demands on space in the building. The Commission has decided that this is the best area for exhibitions. Other events and have taken place there, and organisations have had very successful exhibitions.

Assembly (Recruitment of Staff)

2. asked the Assembly Commission to detail what methodology has been put in place for weighing up Civil Service experience and non-Civil Service experience (for example academic, research, policy, political activity) to ensure equality in the recruitment of staff to the Assembly Secretariat.
(AQO1344/00)


The Assembly Commission — in taking forward what is a very substantial recruitment programme — has adopted the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. That principle is being applied to all Assembly recruitment competitions, and adherence to the principle maintains the integrity of the Assembly and cultivates an environment where applicants for Assembly posts will be confident that they will be treated fairly and equally.
All job requirements for Assembly posts are set and clearly defined by the selection panel before jobs are advertised. Application forms are designed to seek only information relevant to the assessment of candidates against the criteria specified for the job.
In determining the job requirements of each post to be advertised, the assessment panel does not — and I repeat — does not consider how potential applicants have gained the requirements being sought. Only those applicants who fully meet the stipulated job requirements are deemed eligible for participation in the recruitment competition.
I assure the Member that the requirements stipulated for all publicly advertised Assembly posts, be they academic qualfications, periods of relevant experience, or both, are entirely job-related and considered essential for the job.
All members of the selection panel — including members of the Assembly Commission, who, on a number of occasions, have been on selection panels themselves — have received criteria-based interviewing and equal opportunities training. Selection panels comprise male and female representatives from more than one community background.


My remarks are not in any way intended to be a slight on Civil Service or current Assembly staff. However, does the Assembly Commission agree that, in order to deliver the new beginning that the Belfast Agreement heralds, it should enourage applicants from as wide a range of people as possible to ensure that it is not just people with a Civil Service background who are working in this Building?
To have a broad approach and to enhance the new beginning that we are trying to create, it would benefit the Assembly staff and the Secretariat if we could draw people from as wide a variety of backgrounds as possible. Recruitment and interviewing measures should not, therefore, be seen as skewed to those who have a Civil Service background.


That is exactly what the Commission has achieved. Over half of the 98 staff appointed have been non-civil servants. Only 46 have been civil servants. Fifty-one per cent of applicants were Protestants, 43% were Catholics; 51% were female, and 49% were male. Those figures are very representative of the travel-to-work area for the Building, and I am confident that the Assembly Commission has carried out its duties and selection in a very fair and even-handed manner.

Assembly (Recruitment of Staff): Proportion of Civil Servants

3. asked the Assembly Commission to detail (a) the number of civil servants who have been successful in external competition for appointment to the Assembly Secretariat and (b) what proportion of all recruitment to the Assembly Secretariat has come from the Civil Service.
(AQO1362/00)


Forty-six civil servants have been successful in obtaining appointments to the Assembly secretariat following external competition. To date, 47% of those recruited to the Assembly through external competition have been civil servants.


In the light of the previous question from my Colleague, Mr Conor Murphy, I would like an assurance that openness and accountability are the key themes in recruitment. Are those people who are seconded from other parts of the Civil Service treated with parity when employed in the Assembly secretariat?


I can give an assurance that the Assembly Commission has been entirely fair in all its dealings in the appointment of staff. All our positions are advertised in the the three local newspapers, the ‘Irish News’, the ‘News Letter’ and the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. When the Commission deems it to be necessary, we also advertise in papers that circulate in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. We are confident, having analysed statistics on those who are applying, that we are attracting applications from the widest possible section of society.
We have also been successful in attracting 53% of applicants from outside the Civil Service. That percentage includes people who have worked for district councils, the Housing Executive and other statutory agencies. I can give a personal assurance, as well as an assurance on behalf of the Commission, that we have been scrupulously fair in our implementation of the fair employment guidelines in all recruitment activities since the Assembly was founded.


There is a lot of benefit to be had from bringing in skills from areas outside the Civil Service, such as the public sector and other local government agencies. However, does the Commission agree that if it excludes civil servants with relevant experience, it will be in breach of equality legislation?


That is a fundamental point. If we said that we would not accept applications from civil servants, we would be in contravention of all of the relevant legislation. Obviously, civil servants are attracted to posts in the Assembly, because they can seek secondment from their Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments and return if they wish. That is clearly one of the reasons why so many civil servants have applied. However, having applied, they are treated in exactly the same way as any other applicants. The figures show that, despite the attraction of secondment, over half of the — very good — staff that we have appointed have come from outside the Civil Service. If the view that there is a bias in favour of civil servants is inherent in this question, the statistics show that that is not the case.


There are no further questions to the Assembly Commission.

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: Question number 4, in the name of Mr Ivan Davis, has been withdrawn. Question number 7, in the name of Mr Alex Maskey, has been ruled inadmissible under Standing Order 68, on the grounds of sub judice. Question number 13, in the name of Mr Roy Beggs, has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and Mr Beggs will receive a written answer.
I remind the House about the question of sub judice. This matter was raised this morning, and I took the view that, under Standing Order 68, any reference to a matter before the court, or indeed a matter set down for appeal, was sub judice. The matter before the court is the lawfulness or otherwise of the particular decision, and that is what falls under sub judice under Standing Order 68. Therefore, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is inadmissible in any questions, including supplementary questions — or, indeed, Ministerial replies — to make reference to the question before the court. I make that point at this stage in the hope — not I trust, a vain one — that that will conclude the matter for the rest of the day.

Public Appointments

Mrs Joan Carson: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an assessment on transparency in public appointments following the publication of the Fourth Annual Report on Public Appointments.
(AQO1346/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The procedures for public appointments are drawn up by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. They emphasise the need for appointments to be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, the inclusion of an independent element in the selection process, openness and transparency in the appointments procedure and information to be published about appointments made. All Northern Ireland Departments are required to make appointments to their public bodies based on merit and in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance. The involvement of independent assessors in the process should provide a guarantee of the objective implementation of the Commissioner’s code and is intended to provide the public with assurance that the process is transparent and fair.

Mrs Joan Carson: The Fourth Annual Report on Public Appointments states that there are 2,300 public appointments on a total of 117 bodies. Does the Minister agree that this is an excessive number under devolution, especially when the total funding that these bodies administer is taken into account? Many quangos have been made redundant by the responsibilities of the new Government Departments and Assembly Committees.
For example, is the Training and Employment Agency board, with 12 members and salaries totalling £70,335, really necessary? It has a remit that could now be overseen by the relevant Committee and Department. Three members were recently appointed, so it is obvious that the Department wishes to continue with the quango. Will the Minister investigate the situation, with a view to an immediate reorganisation and review to reduce the number of quangos?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I take the Member’s point. She will, of course, be aware that Ministers are responsible for public appointments in the remit of their Departments. The role of non-departmental public bodies is a matter that will be considered as part of the review of public administration. The First Minister and I will write to the Member with details of the budgets of non- departmental public bodies.
I agree with the thrust of the Member’s question. Given the type of structures that have been created politically since the Good Friday Agreement, there is duplication of effort by the large number of public bodies.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Does the Minister accept that underrepresentation of some sectors still remains an issue? Will he make a statement about the appointment of a commissioner, and does he agree that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should make this appointment?

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is accepted that members of public bodies in Northern Ireland should be more representative of the social and cultural mix of the communities which they serve and that members should be drawn from a broad range of backgrounds and experience. Appointments, of course, depend on the range and calibre of people who put themselves forward for selection. We consider it important to encourage a wide range of people to apply for public appointments. Action has been taken to address underrepresentation, and this includes the wide circulation of a six-monthly list of forthcoming vacancies on public bodies; more varied use of the media advertising of public appointment opportunities; and reviewing the job specification for each public appointment to ensure that the criteria do not discriminate against any group.
Application forms are also being revised to make them less off-putting, especially to women and underrepresented groups and to enable greater account to be taken of the merits of non-traditional career patterns.
I agree that the appointment of a commissioner should fall to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister rather than to the Secretary of State as at present. We will therefore make a Prerogative Order shortly which will confer the power of appointment to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
As part of a wider review of the public appointments policy we will also consider whether to appoint a separate commissioner for Northern Ireland. In the interim, however, we have agreed to extend the period of appointment of Dame Rennie Fritchie, who also acts as Commissioner in Britain, and that will last until 28 February 2002.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that to enhance transparency in public appointments clear criteria should be published, one of which should be that appointees have no terrorist convictions? In the light of the boast of terrorist involvement this weekend by the Minister of Education, will the Deputy First Minister say whether the First Minister has indicated to him that his party will be joining the DUP in calling for the resignation of the Minister of Education?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member raises a matter which relates to an elected appointment under the d’Hondt system — it is not a public appointment. In relation to public appointments the criteria are there and have, by and large, been fulfilled. As I pointed out in answer to a previous question, things such as the structures under which we operate are changing, and the need for many quangos has receded.

Executive Office in Brussels (Cost)

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the final cost of setting up the Executive office in Brussels.
(AQO1333/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The current estimate is £299,000. The final cost will depend on exchange rates at the time when payment is made. The work of fitting out the office should be completed by the end of May.

Mr Edwin Poots: What was the initial estimated cost for this job, and what process was undertaken to obtain prices for the work? What is the difference between the initial and the current estimates?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The initial estimate was not a fully worked out costing. The present costing reflects the price of converting open-floor space into office accommodation. The original estimate was much lower than the present one. I regret that I do not have the relevant figure before me at the moment, but I shall inform the Member in writing.

Mr Joe Byrne: Although the Executive Office in Brussels will represent the Executive as a whole, does the First Minister accept that key sectors such as finance, agriculture and industry need to develop specific issues with the European institutions? How will these interests be catered for?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We have established an interdepartmental group chaired by the junior Ministers whose function it is in the first instance to consider the priorities of the Office. In that way we hope to ensure that the Office will reflect the interests of the Administration across all the Departments.

Community Relations Council

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to explain the delay in appointing eight representatives to the Community Relations Council.
(AQO1323/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I refer the Member to our written response of 2 April to question 2173/00. The making of appointments was initially hindered by the suspension of the Assembly between 11 February and 29 May 2000. More recently, the Department initiated a triannual evaluation of the Community Relations Council. We also announced in the Programme for Government our intention to carry out a major review of community relations policies. In these circumstances it was decided that it would not be appropriate to make further appointments to the Council before we had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the evaluation and the policy review.
I assure the House that we remain fully committed to tackling the divisions that remain in our society. We will, by means of the review, and the subsequent strategy, ensure that we have effective policies in place to do that.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for that response, but it leaves me a little baffled. I understand that the suspension of this Assembly in the early part of last year prevented the making of appointments. However, in a written answer which I should have received on 16 March, but did not receive until 2 April, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister told me that interviews took place on 7 and 21 February and, in their response to me on 19 February, they indicated that appointments would be made soon. The interviews took place on 7 and 21 February 2000, but I received my response on 19 February 2001.
It appears that the three-month suspension of the Assembly managed to delay matters for an entire year. I cannot understand how the First Minister could have failed to make any appointment if, as they state, community relations policy is a priority for this Executive. Is this failure to appoint staff to such a vital community relations body for over a year to be taken as a suggestion that we believe in the conspiracy theory of politics of this nature, rather than the cock-up theory?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I assure the Member that a conspiracy theory was the furthest thing from our minds. I accept that there was a delay in informing those who had been interviewed of their position. We have written to those people, explained the position, and we have apologised for that delay. We have also instructed officials to review procedures for handling such matters to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future. But the question still remains: would it have been better to go ahead and make appointments prior to the review and the assessment of the community relations policy? Alternatively, would it have been better to await the review and make the appointments on the basis of what might be a re-evaluation of policy and operation?

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the issue of community relations is a crucial one. Is it his view that the current aims of the Community Relations Council remain appropriate?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I believe that the broad general aims are appropriate. The Community Relations Council has operated under very difficult circumstances through many difficult years. However, its priorities, needs and requirements change as other factors change in our society. Unfortunately, one thing has not yet changed, and that is the attitude of those in our society who do not regard community relations as important. The hon Member and I have seen examples of it quite recently in our constituency. We must make the North of Ireland a better place, and the more we can improve the policy of the Community Relations Council, the better it will get.

British/Irish Council: Environment Sectoral Meeting

Mr Eddie McGrady: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the topics that were discussed at the last British-Irish Council sectoral meeting on environment and to make a statement.
(AQO1326/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The last British-Irish Council sectoral meeting on the environment was held in London on 2October2000. Following that meeting, the Minister of the Environment made a statement to the Assembly on 6November2000. I refer the Member to that statement and to the communiqué issued after the meeting, a copy of which is held in the Assembly Library.
The environment sectoral meeting discussed a wide range of priority areas suggested by its members. Ministers agreed that the initial work should concentrate on three issues. The first was radioactive waste from the Sellafield site. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man authorities agreed to lead in the preparation of a paper for the next sectoral meeting. Secondly, the British Government took the lead on the topic of the impact of climate change. The third issue was waste management, on which the Scottish Executive agreed to prepare a paper about initiatives being pursued in Scotland.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister will note that since that meeting, PresidentBush has said that the United States of America no longer subscribes to the principles in the Kyoto protocol on environment and climate change. Can the Minister assure the House that the Executive will continue to play a full part in implementing the principles contained in the Kyoto protocol and also those of the Hague summit of November2000? These measures in respect of environment and climate change and global warming could well be developed through the mechanisms of the British-Irish Council. Though this is a small community, it is important that we give voice to our concern on these matters.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I agree that we must play our full role. I also believe that we can do that through the mechanism and structure of the British-Irish Council. It was very disappointing that agreement was not reached in the Hague. When talks resume in Bonn in July, new efforts will be made to reach a deal that will pave the way for the ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto protocol by 2002. All EU members, as well as people in other countries around the world, remain committed to implementing that protocol. The Executive are fully committed to contributing to the satisfaction of the Kyoto obligation, and we will pursue that at every opportunity, not least through the British-Irish Council.

Programme for Government: Northern Ireland Bureau Washington DC

Mr John Fee: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what progress has been made on the Programme for Government commitments concerning the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington DC.
(AQO1353/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: A number of steps have been undertaken in order to meet our commitments in respect of the Northern Ireland Bureau. Engaging an additional member of staff at middle management level has strengthened the bureau’s resources. We are examining ways to develop a strong working relationship with relevant branches of the United States Administration and Congress.
In that context, we will be reviewing the functions of the bureau, its structure and its relationship with other bodies promoting Northern Ireland in the United States. The objective will be to ensure that a positive image of Northern Ireland is projected in the United States to maximum effect.

Mr John Fee: In the last few years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the adoption of the Programme for Government there have been fundamental changes in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. Can the First Minister give us some indication of how the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington will reflect those fundamental changes, the new relationships with the Irish Government and the devolved Administrations in Britain?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is right to say that the context within which the Northern Ireland Bureau operates has changed significantly. We are undertaking a number of steps which we hope will develop its role further. There has already been an increase in staff. An additional member of staff has been recruited to act as public relations manager. The bureau now acts as a representative of this Administration and is already developing good contacts with key people on Capitol Hill and in the Bush Administration. We plan to review the structure of the bureau and its relationship with other bodies in promoting Northern Ireland in the USA.
It is also anticipated that the bureau will move from its present location in the Embassy to more central premises in downtown Washington sometime in the summer. However, the staff at the Northern Ireland Bureau will continue to be accredited to the Embassy in order to retain diplomatic status.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the First Minister agree that there would be advantages in creating synergy between an IDB office in, or beside, the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington? Is he aware that the IDB office — with operational responsibility for the political centre of gravity in North America — is based in Boston? Is he also aware that the IDB’s North American budget is approximately 10 times that which is being proposed for the bureau?

Rt Hon David Trimble: There is a great deal in what the Member is saying. The IDB locations and budgets reflect the particular task of the Industrial Development Board and its objectives with regard to interfacing with United States industry. The Northern Ireland Bureau is preparing a strategy paper on the options available, including the specific matter of possible co-location of an IDB office and a tourist office with the bureau. The decision will, of course, be taken by Ministers here.

Mr Nigel Dodds: With regard to the work of the bureau and the promotion of the best interests of Northern Ireland, does the Minister not think that the work of that bureau in the United States is undermined by having, as part of his Administration, someone who has admitted that he was second in command of the IRA in Londonderry? Will he take steps to remove that gentleman from office?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have made it clear in the past that I do not make my judgements on the basis of newspaper reports. I draw that to Members’ attention in view of the rulings on parliamentary convention, of which the Member will be aware.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not take points of order during questions to Ministers. I will take it at the end.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I have pointed out in reply to other questions, the object of the bureau is to represent the best interests of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the bureau will do so, despite the fact that it will be hampered by the rather hypocritical attitude to participation in the Executive adopted by the party the Member represents. As to — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As to his coat-trailing comments, I refer the Member to what I said on that subject in the very first speech I made in this Assembly on 1 July 1998. He should go and read it.

Mr Speaker: Order. Members frequently remark on the limited number of questions that it is possible to get through at Question Time. It is made all the more limited if there is disorder in the Chamber.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the fact that the First Minister has recognised the important role that the Northern Ireland Bureau has played over the years. Can he indicate when the changes are going to take place? Also, can he clarify what the role of the bureau will be in the future, as that is a problem at the moment?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The bureau’s focus in the past tended to be on economic issues. With the new Administration here, we see the bureau as reflecting the interests of the Administration as a whole. Consequently, it is looking at its strategy and the way in which it is going to work.
As I said in reply to other questions, it hopes to relocate in the summer, but that will depend on circumstances and events there.
As to the issues that the bureau will be pursuing, I am sure that there will still be a very strong emphasis on economic matters, given the ongoing interest in doing business with the US and the very substantial US investment in Northern Ireland. However, we can work closely with the US Administration on other specific areas such as education, and we are anxious to do so.

Invitation to the President of the United States

Ms Pauline Armitage: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if, during the recent visit to Washington DC, an invitation was extended to the President of the United States to visit Northern Ireland to join in the celebrations of the Battle of the Boyne.
(AQO1319/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: However attractive the Twelfth of July celebrations might be, the President will have many demands on his time during his first year in office. Consequently, no invitation has yet been extended to the President to visit Northern Ireland, although we hope that he is able to visit at some time during his term in office.

Ms Pauline Armitage: Do you agree that when our politicians arrive in America they seem quite comfortable in celebrating St Patrick’s Day surrounded by everything green — green faces, green leprechauns and green flags? Is this due to the change of climate or the influence of the President?
If President Bush agreed to attend the Battle of the Boyne celebrations, do you think that his presence would have the same effect here? Could the President contribute to the achievement of civil rights and equality for all, including the right to walk home from a church service in July? Do you think that it would be good for tourism, and can you envisage the marketing of the Twelfth of July celebrations as a major tourist attraction in America?

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that when she refers to "you", she refers to the Speaker. I shall, however, assume that the question is put to the House and to the First Minister.

Ms Pauline Armitage: I am sorry, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon David Trimble: You, Mr Speaker, would, no doubt, be able to give an enthusiastic response to the Member’s question. A number of points could be made in response. The Member’s points in regard to parity of esteem were very well made, and I hope that Members across the House appreciated them. It would be nice to see what is, in many respects, the largest folk festival in western Europe operate as something to be enjoyed by everyone — as a tourist attraction it could be thus enjoyed.
However, I take issue with one of the Member’s initial comments. St Patrick’s contribution should be seen as something that benefits all sections of the community. In that context, it was very nice to see the Democratic Unionist Party represented in the White House along with all the other parties.

Mr Speaker: Order. Members in the bottom corner should give their Colleague an opportunity to put his question.

Mr David Hilditch: Having witnessed a fair degree of discrimination against the Orange Order, including the decision to exclude the institution from the Civic Forum, can the First and the Deputy First Minister indicate how they intend to celebrate the 311th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne? This is particularly relevant when one considers that the concept of civil and religious liberties was a direct result of the outcome of that battle.
On what basis did Mr Mallon, as the Deputy First Minister, decide not to meet Portadown Orangemen? Can the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure us that no further concessions will be made to Sinn Feín/IRA terrorist-fronted residents’ groups during the forthcoming celebrations?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I would be very glad if parades- related issues were the responsibility of this House and of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but at present those decisions lie with other bodies. Both myself and the Deputy First Minister have, on a number of occasions, made clear our several positions and views on the operation of that body, and I will not repeat them now. As to what one does on a public holiday, most Members will find their own way of taking advantage of this time.

Promoting Social Inclusion

Ms Carmel Hanna: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to provide details of plans for the implementation of existing promoting social inclusion reports.
(AQO1356/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: There are currently two reports promoting social inclusion — one on travellers and the other on teenage pregnancy. The working group report on travellers was issued to voluntary, statutory and other organisations for consultation in December.
Separate arrangements are being made for focus consultations with travellers. After consultation, all the recommendations and the views that have been expressed will be considered, and a report on the way forward will be published. The report by the working group on teenage pregnancy, entitled ‘Myths and Reality’, was issued for consultation on 7 November 2000. Consultation ended on 31 March, and the comments that were received are being evaluated by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Ms Carmel Hanna: Can the Deputy First Minister tell me when the reports will be finalised? Is there a timescale? I appreciate that he has given that information for ‘Myths and Reality’, but is there a timescale for the report on travellers?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member is right. The Programme for Government commits us to consult during 2001. Future priorities must be tackled by promoting the social inclusion element of New TSN. On 4 May 2001, we will initiate public consultation on future priorities. A document will be issued, and the consultation period will end in August. The Executive will use the outcome of the consultation to determine what the next priorities should be, and we will announce new cross- departmental priorities in November.

European Cohesion Forum

Mr John Dallat: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if an invitation to participate in the European Cohesion Forum has been received.
(AQO1355/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: An invitation has been received from the European Commission to attend the forum that will be held in Brussels in May to discuss the Second Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion in the European Union. Northern Ireland has been allocated eight places at the forum. That reflects the importance to Northern Ireland of European cohesion policies and, in particular, the contribution to the structural funds and peace programmes that have been made over the last few years. The wide range of Northern Ireland interests in the second cohesion report will be reflected by the number of Departments that will be represented at the forum. However, the level of representation is yet to be determined.

Mr Speaker: The Member will not be able to ask a supplementary question because the time is up.

Mr John Dallat: Mr Speaker, I am very happy with the comprehensive answer that I received.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is really a supplementary point to the one raised by Mr Dodds. I think you said that it would be unwise to work on reports in a newspaper about Mr McGuinness’s participation in the IRA. I just wanted to remind the First Minister that he gave us a much better assessment when he said that with the exception of —[Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. That was not a point of order. The Member was taking advantage. I stand by my view that you cannot believe half of the lies that you read in the newspapers but that you can believe at least half of the truth that you read in them. I do not think that there was a point of order to answer.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Safe Spectator Facilities

Mr Speaker: Question five, in the name of Mr Gibson, has been transferred to the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Mr John Fee: 1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the progress being made to promote safe spectator facilities at major sporting venues across Northern Ireland.
(AQO1358/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Excellent progress is being made, under the safe sportsground scheme, on improving the health and safety aspects of spectator facilities at our major sportsgrounds. Work is underway at 23 venues. Thirteen are soccer venues, nine are GAA venues and one is a rugby venue. Expenditure of around £2 million was made by the end of the 2000/01 financial year. Awards have been allocated for improvement work on a further 11 venues — eight soccer venues and three GAA venues. Work on those will start as soon as possible.

Mr John Fee: Can the Minister confirm that, over the 1990s, the premier facilities for each sport were identified by representatives of those sports and that work has been carried out for rugby at Ravenhill, for hockey at Blaris, for soccer at Windsor Park and for hurling at Casement Park. Will he confirm that the only major project that has yet to be started is for Gaelic football at the athletic grounds in Armagh? Will the Minister take a personal interest in that project so that major Gaelic sporting matches can return to Armagh city?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Executive and the Assembly found the money for a safe sports ground scheme because they recognised the glaring need in football, gaelic and rugby grounds. It would have taken over £20 million to bring the various stadiums up to the standard recommended by the Taylor report. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has made a start, but there is still much to be done.
Northern Ireland experienced a serious shortfall during direct rule. For example, we did not get any football trust money for soccer grounds, because there was no one here arguing for it. All the money went to England, Scotland and Wales — Northern Ireland got nothing. That is one of the reasons why the Executive and the Assembly have taken the matter forward.
I have been in discussion with representatives of the GAA, not specifically about Armagh, but about various grounds, and I will take on board what the Member said. I realise that there is a need at Armagh; there is also a need at Casement Park and at a number of other grounds.

Mr Norman Boyd: In the light of the ticket fiasco in relation to the forthcoming Irish Cup final between Linfield and Glentoran, does the Minister agree that there should be an investigation into why crowd restrictions have been imposed by the Irish Football Association (IFA) when health and safety officials have stated publicly that they have not proposed such restrictions?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Irish Cup final next Saturday is specifically a matter for the IFA. I understand that the IFA advised, and had been in discussion with, the health and safety executive of Belfast City Council. The IFA proposed a ticket limit of 10,800, evenly divided between the two teams, and Belfast City Council’s health and safety department agreed with that. However, I understand that officials from Belfast City Council who visited Windsor Park on 27 April agreed that there was potential for some increase in the number of tickets available. There was also a suggestion — opposed by the clubs — that there would be an even bigger increase if the kick-off were at 11 o’clock. It is a matter for the IFA in discussions with Belfast City Council. There is to be another meeting tomorrow, and we will know more then.
On the matter of inquiries, the IFA is the responsible governing body. How it runs its business is a matter for it. I can, however, refer to the soccer strategy for Northern Ireland that I have undertaken and which is ongoing. A number of issues have come to the fore through those discussions, and I have no doubt that the issues of the IFA, Windsor Park and ticketing will be discussed.

Mr Jim Shannon: Can the Minister tell us what funding will be available to promote safer spectator facilities at sporting venues such as first division football clubs to bring them up to an acceptable standard? Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ards Football Club on winning the first division championship and getting into the premier league? Does he recognise that the club will need some funding and assistance in relation to that?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As has been detailed on a number of occasions in the House, there is a grand total of £5·3 million available over three years: £3 million in year one — of which £2 million has been spent; £1·5 million in year two and, currently, a projected £800,000 for year three. The Department does not know how much money, if any, will be coming from the football foundation. That is the amount available, and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is administering the expenditure in conjunction with representatives of the various sports, health and safety personnel and the RUC.
I am delighted to see that Ards Football Club has been promoted back to the premier division. As a category A club, Ards will be eligible to bid, along with all of the other clubs, for the available funding.

Visitor Amenities

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline what provision is being made for the additional promotion of visitor amenities.
(AQO1327/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: There is no universally accepted definition of a visitor amenity, but what definitions there are show that such amenities cover some areas that are outside the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. However, the Department is currently looking at developing a workable definition of visitor amenities that will enable it to specify and plan its responsibilities in the context of a heritage policy and strategy for Northern Ireland.
I am conscious of the important contribution that visitor amenities make to the economy of Northern Ireland, and my Department’s corporate strategy recognises the need to promote them.
We have committed ourselves to the key task of designing and implementing a strategy for the development of visitor amenities. I will be examining the scope for their promotion and development in the context of the recently completed local museum and heritage review which I expect to receive shortly.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I understand that a joint bid by the Minister’s Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has been made for European funding under the cultural tourism initiative. How will this funding benefit the promotion of centres? Perhaps I could address the Minister’s lack of definition by highlighting the St Patrick’s Heritage Centre as an example of such an amenity. How can funding be directed, and how will it be applied to support the promotion of such centres as tourist attractions?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I concur that the St Patrick’s Centre — which, as Mr McGrady knows, I have visited — is a very impressive recent addition to the visitor amenity estate. "Visitor amenity" is the term used to define any service or facility that is used by, or exists for the benefit of visitors. A position paper on visitor amenities was commissioned in June 2000, and a study from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, which compiled an inventory of visitor amenities attractions, was published in May 2000. There are over 400 facilities covering six categories. They are owned by a variety of Departments, local councils or private owners.
We need to develop an agreed strategy in the context of a broad partnership. When we work out what we want to do, the European funding will, it is to be hoped, allow us to implement that strategy. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee is also examining the possibility of cultural tourism. All those elements feed into one another and provide what I have no doubt will be a very important adjunct to our tourism potential.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that Carrickfergus Castle fulfils many of the criteria that he has talked about, as it is a facility which will attract visitors to Northern Ireland, and promote further visits? The castle has a long history associated with the political establishment of Northern Ireland. In fact, in the early days, Carrickfergus was the capital of Northern Ireland. Can the Minister ensure that Carrickfergus Castle will be considered for any European funding?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have already mentioned that there are over 400 facilities, covering six categories. One of the categories will be historical buildings and monuments, and Carrickfergus Castle is a very important historic building. It represents one of the key parts of our visitor amenities estate. It is also owned and managed by the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service. That indicates the need for partnership — it is not simply for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to determine how Carrickfergus Castle should be promoted and what extra facilities it requires. It is a question of partnership and, therefore, of cohesion among all the owners and managers, and that means creating an agreed strategy. At present we are actively working on this strategy, and it will be informed by the local museums and heritage review.

Angling (Concessions)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether there are concessions for the following people who wish to become involved in the sport of angling (a) the disabled; (b) pensioners; (c) the young and (d) the unemployed.
(AQO1338/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am responsible for approving licence fees submitted by the Fisheries Conservancy Board but not those set by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. There are no concessionary licence rates for disabled people, pensioners or the unemployed living within the Fisheries Conservancy Board’s area. Young people under 18 years of age do not require a licence to fish. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 amended the board’s by-law making powers to enable the board to introduce concessionary licences for particular classes of persons, if it so wishes.
It is for the board to consider whether and when to introduce concessionary licence fees. However, as I indicated in my evidence to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee during the passage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, I believe very strongly in the arguments for concessions for disabled anglers. Accordingly, I have provided additional moneys this year to help offset any loss the board may incur should it decide to introduce concessionary fees for people with disabilities.
In addition, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure issues permits to allow anglers to fish in the public angling estate. Disabled anglers benefit from concessionary permit rates, and young people under eighteen years of age can also fish for game fish in the Department’s waters at a reduced rate without a coarse fishing permit. There are no permit concessions for pensioners or the unemployed.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the initiatives the Minister has mentioned. Are there any plans for future initiatives, particularly for pensioners and the unemployed? Will there be any initiatives from the Minister’s Department on disabled access to some of the other fishing areas where there is currently no access?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: With regard to the disabled, being able to access the waters is one of the key factors. Many of the waters in the angling estate are accessible to disabled anglers. Those are listed in the Department’s 2001 angling guide. It is a matter for ongoing consideration, and we continually bid for moneys when appropriate at each round. One of the key areas that we are looking to bid for is in the provision of accessibility to waters for those suffering a disability.
As far as permits are concerned, I must make the point that they are already discounted by roughly 50%. There is a 50% discount on a standard permit. The current cost of the permit — £53 per year — is roughly half of what it takes to run the public angling estate. Much has been done, but I fear that, under the current financial conditions, I do not have the latitude to make any further reductions.

Centrally Located Public Swimming Pool

Mr P J Bradley: 4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to undertake a feasibility study with a view to providing a centrally located 50m public swimming pool in Northern Ireland.
(AQO1336/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Responsibility for leisure provision lies with district councils. Each district council has a statutory obligation under article 10 of the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to secure provision of adequate facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities for its area.
In addition to provision made at district council level, plans are well advanced for a Northern Ireland institute of sport at the Jordanstown campus of the University of Ulster, which is being developed as part of the network of United Kingdom sports institutes. Subject to costings and a detailed appraisal, the aspiration is to provide a 50m eight-lane competition pool with adequate spectator provision as an integral part of the sports institute at the Jordanstown site.

Mr P J Bradley: In my oral question, I specifically referred to the central location for a 50m pool. This is a follow-on to a request made by Newry and Mourne councillor, Pat Toner, in 1999 and taken up again recently by council. He highlighted that approximately three million people live within the Newry/Warrenpoint catchment area. Given the fact that there are a total of sixteen 50m pools in England and Scotland and that 50m pools in Loughborough, Swansea and Stirling have been successful in obtaining lottery funding, will the Minister undertake to have his Department meet with the National Lottery to seek its support for the provision of a 50m pool in Northern Ireland?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I repeat that it is planned to have a 50m pool as part of the new United Kingdom network sports institute at Jordanstown. There has been widespread consultation throughout with Swim Ireland. As I am sure you are aware, swimming is an all-Ireland sport and is organised on an all-Ireland basis. There is a 50m pool currently under construction in Limerick, and another one is planned at Abbotstown in Dublin.
Northern Ireland is, therefore, an ideal location. Our aim is to provide, as part of the UK Sports Institute, a centre for world-class training and support services. It is felt that our talented athletes would be best served by the establishment of an institute in conjunction with the University of Ulster at Jordanstown.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sílim go gcaithfimid bheith iontach cúramach céillí maidir le cúrsaí airgid agus áiseanna spóirt ar fud na hÉireann.
I am aware of the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of public spending on sports facilities in Ireland. I welcome the Minister’s comments on developments at Limerick, Abbotstown and Jordanstown. Will the Minister enter into formal discussions with his ministerial Colleague in the rest of Ireland, Dr Jim McDaid, to try to ensure that citizens and sportsmen in the Six Counties can make full use of Stadium Ireland should it come about?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware of the current state of play in regard to that stadium. I am more concerned with proposals for a new stadium in Northern Ireland. The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has the overall responsibility for developing each sport. In conjunction with the UK Sports Institute, it has determined the way forward for such developments as the new institute for sporting excellence at Jordanstown.

Mr Seamus Close: Lisburn Borough Council closely considered the possibility of providing a 50m pool when it was planning its new leisure complex. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that complex is the best, not just in Northern Ireland, but throughout the UK. One of our concerns about the provision of a 50m pool was the ongoing revenue costs of such a facility.
We considered that while there are many grants available for the capital cost of the provision of the facility, it would be grossly unfair to lumber a local authority with such massive revenue costs. I suggest that the Minister, in his deliberations of this issue, closely considers the impact of the revenue costs on any local authority.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree with Mr Close’s very important point. Grants are available for capital provision, but it is the ongoing revenue costs which often cause the difficulties. It is also a matter which, for example, Belfast City Council has considered in the past. The cost of managing and running a 50m pool was considered to be prohibitive, not just by Lisburn Borough Council but by other councils. Newry and Mourne District Council has had a long-term aspiration to provide a 50m pool, but I do not believe that it has any immediate plans. Therefore, I agree with Mr Close that revenue consequences often determine whether provision is possible. It would be difficult to cover the running costs of a 50m pool unless, for example, it were built as part of the UK Sports Institute campus at Jordanstown.

Arts Sector Cultural Quarter

Mrs Annie Courtney: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what grants are available to those who are working within the arts sector to achieve a cultural quarter as detailed in the Programme for Government.
(AQO1350/00)

Mr Alex Maskey: 10. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what progress has been made in respect of the Programme for Government commitment to establish, by June 2001, a forum to co-ordinate and promote the cultural quarter concept of designated areas for locating cultural activity with a view to creating synergy and co-operation.
(AQO1361/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: With the Speaker’s permission, I will answer questions 6 and 10 together. There is no specific grant programme in the arts sector for the development of cultural quarters generally. However, the Laganside Corporation in Belfast is making funding available for the development of the cultural dimension of the city’s Cathedral Quarter managed workspace initiative.
The Programme for Government provides for the establishment before June 2001 of a forum to co-ordinate and promote the cultural, arts and leisure dimension of the cultural quarter concept. My Department is developing this plan through a working group, chaired by my permanent secretary, which is considering local strategies for culture, arts and leisure. The working group is developing draft guidance on local strategies including the promotion of the cultural quarter concept at local levels throughout Northern Ireland. This will be presented to a forum, which has been provisionally arranged for 22 May 2001.

Mrs Annie Courtney: The Minister might be aware that at present there are advanced plans to create such a quarter in Derry — the Cathedral Quarter adjacent to St Columb’s Cathedral in the Diamond. His reply will come as a disappointment to those people, but I welcome his comments on the forum which is to make a response by June 2002. I look forward to that.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The cultural quarter concept will be readily adaptable, not simply to Belfast. I am aware that Londonderry has a very strong tradition of cultural development. An important infrastructure is also developing; the Playhouse Theatre, the Nerve Centre, the Verbal Arts Centre and the new theatre are some examples. There is also a new theatre at Ebrington. A very strong case can be made for the City of Derry, and my Department will be happy to discuss any matters with the corporation that Mrs Courtney or others may wish to propose.

Dr Ian Adamson: Will the Minister detail what grants will be made available to those who are working in the arts sector to promote exchanges with cultural quarters in other countries such as the proposed Nashville visual arts project?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware that any funding is specifically set aside for exchanges between cultural quarters. However, the Arts Council is the funding body for arts, and it can address such applications. If Dr Adamson speaks to me afterwards we can work out a way forward, but I am not clear which cultural quarters he is considering. No funding immediately springs to mind.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr David Ford: 7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the steps he is taking within his Department to contain the threat of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1324/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Unfortunately, since my previous reply to Mr Ford on this matter on 20 March 2001, the foot-and-mouth situation has worsened. My Department continues to be represented on the interdepartmental co- ordinating group under Ms Rodger’s chairmanship. That group has met 15 times since the beginning of March and continues to play a key role in ensuring a consistent and cross-departmental approach to the problem. My first response to the crisis was to close the public angling estate and to call for the postponement or cancellation of sporting and other events that might risk spreading the virus. Before Easter, the Executive agreed revised guidelines which focused attention on the fortress-farm approach but allowed other pursuits and events to return to near-normality. I have been impressed and grateful that so many organisers have acted responsibly in abiding by those guidelines.

Mr David Ford: I join the Minister in recognising the responsible attitude shown by many people in the way that they have conducted normal business — or amended normal business — because of this outbreak of foot- and-mouth disease. Current guidelines from his Colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, suggest that complacency is still the greatest threat. What is the Minister doing to ensure that anglers and others are not becoming complacent three weeks after the last outbreaks while the threat still exists?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am conscious that I do not want to stray into the responsibilities of my Colleague, Ms Rodgers. The Executive and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have driven awareness forward, emphasising the importance of fortress farming and stressing that this is not simply a matter that affects farmers. It affects everyone. We should ensure that complacency is not creeping in. That is why we took measures in relation to the public angling estate. We closed it initially, but there has now been a limited re-opening. We are constantly keeping those areas under review. The interdepartmental group has met on 15 occasions, and a number of special Executive Committee meetings have also been held to monitor the situation and to reinforce the fact that we are all involved in fortress farming. The important thing to do is to eradicate the disease.

Northern Ireland Football Teams Supporters Clubs

Mr Derek Hussey: 8. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to make representation to the Irish Football Association (IFA) to establish an official co-ordinated network of Northern Ireland football team supporters clubs.
(AQO1314/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The IFA already recognises the need to have an official, co-ordinated approach to Northern Ireland football team supporters. The IFA regards the amalgamation of official Northern Ireland supporters clubs as the potential umbrella for genuine national team supporters clubs. The IFA and the amalgamation of official Northern Ireland supporters clubs are continuing to work in partnership to affiliate clubs that are not currently represented by this group.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the Minister’s response. I am sure he agrees that such a move, when it comes to fruition, will greatly help to curtail the problems that the IFA has had, on occasion, at international matches. In conclusion and to avail myself of the same leeway as that allowed to Mr Shannon, I invite the Minister, if he wishes, to attend the Irish Junior Cup Final between Dergview and Irvinestown, to be played in Ballinamallard.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I thank Mr Hussey for his invitation to the Junior Cup Final in Ballinamallard. I am not aware if I have an official invitation yet, but I look forward to receiving one. If the diary is free, I will certainly look forward to seeing him there.
The amalgamation of the Northern Ireland football supporters’ clubs will give a very important focus for supporters of the Northern Ireland team. It will ensure that constantly and continually we have growing and thriving support as well as a welcoming, family-friendly atmosphere at internationals at home and abroad.

Rivers

Mr Edwin Poots: 9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline his Department’s role in ensuring rivers are free from debris.
(AQO1334/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My Department’s statutory responsibilities are essentially limited to a duty of care on its properties — we must take reasonable measures to prevent danger to the public or damage to property. For inland waterways this applies to those sections of the abandoned Lagan navigation, Coalisland canal and Upper Bann navigation, which remain in Government ownership.
Specifically, in relation to the Lagan towpath between Belfast and Lisburn, which is owned and maintained by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, my Department makes an annual financial contribution to Lagan Valley Regional Park costs for wardens to provide a litter clearance service. In general, my Department takes every available opportunity to liaise with other statutory authorities to encourage debris-free rivers, particularly where angling tourism is involved.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does the Minister accept that rivers full of polythene bags and other household debris are not acceptable to either tourists or anglers? Will he endeavour, along with the other statutory agencies, to ensure that mechanisms are put in place so that rivers are cleaned on a regular basis, not on a very occasional basis?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Initially, I must point out that responsibility for removing debris from watercourses lies with the landowner concerned. The Department is involved only where it is the landowner — for example, through the Lagan Valley Regional Park, on the towpath alone. The Rivers Agency has powers to remove debris from designated watercourses, but not for visual reasons — only for flow streams. It is primarily for the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment to take action against river pollution. One must always look to the landowner. He is responsible for the river that runs through his land. He is responsibile for the removal of debris.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before I call Mr Fee, I advise Members that question 3 has been withdrawn

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Newry and Mourne Area)

Mr John Fee: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assessment she has made of the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on rural communities, particularly in Newry and Mourne, and to make a statement.
(AQO1359/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: My officials began making assessments of the possible impact of foot-and-mouth disease on the agrifood sector in Northern Ireland in the wake of the discovery of the first case in England, based on a range of scenarios — from a few confirmed cases in Northern Ireland to a much more widespread outbreak. If the disease is contained at its current level of four confirmed cases, and exports can resume relatively quickly, the Northern Ireland agrifood industry overall is not likely to incur significant damage and could even gain slightly by being able to sell in markets closed to the rest of the UK. However, some individual farmers and other businesses will be adversely affected, even in this optimistic scenario.
If the disease were to escalate here, the impact could be extremely serious with an estimated cost to the agrifood sector from a prolonged and widespread outbreak potentially rising to over £120 million over a 12-month period. Until the most recent cases in Counties Tyrone and Antrim, our assessment that the impact of the disease on the community in Newry and Mourne was marginally greater than in the rest of Northern Ireland, with restrictions on livestock movement and a ban on meat and dairy exports lasting approximately three weeks longer than elsewhere. Unfortunately, the most recent cases mean that the whole of Northern Ireland is now on the same footing as Newry and Mourne.

Mr John Fee: The Minister has been to the forefront of efforts to combat the crisis every day for months. However, I ask her to consider again the arrangements that are in place, particularly in areas such as Newry and Mourne, which have been under restriction for the longest time. Will the Minister formalise a welfare slaughter scheme? Does she recognise that the requirement to pay the costs of private veterinary practitioners is causing hurt, pain and anger? Because of the restrictions, some farmers have livestock that they simply cannot sell and from which they can make no income. In south Armagh, one livestock sale has lost a turnover of £2 million compared to the same period last year. What will the Minister do about such cases?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Mr Fee of the ruling that the Speaker made this morning. Members may ask several questions, but the Minister may choose to answer only one.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his opening remarks. I shall deal with the question about welfare, which is a pressing issue. As the Member is aware, we have already run a scheme for pigs for those caught up in one of the movement restrictions associated with the outbreak in south Armagh. Evidence of the need for another one is emerging. However, I must be satisfied that such a scheme is justified on animal welfare grounds, as opposed to purely commercial grounds. I will run a scheme if it is justified. I am considering the issue, and I know that there is concern about it.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has reduced the amounts that are paid. Pigs now attract a maximum of £50 per animal in welfare culls, and £30 per sow. Those prices are considerably less than the original prices. The reasons behind those reductions will also apply in Northern Ireland. In extreme welfare situations, a scheme may be necessary, but I need to assess whether it would be used for welfare or commercial reasons. I will come to a decision shortly.

Mr Billy Armstrong: When will the Minister be able to announce that farm-to-farm sales may recommence, as we have had no more cases of foot-and-mouth disease? I understand that there must be a period of 30 days following the last case before there can be any relaxation.
We all appreciate the fact that farmers can move cattle and pigs to abattoirs. However, it is not possible to move weaned calves to pasture for welfare reasons. I am sure that the Minister knows that there is no movement of cull sows. I welcome the movement of over-30-months cattle to Glenavy. When might such movements take place?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I shall deal with the question on farm-to-farm sales. It is a major issue, and it has been raised with me by public representatives and by individuals. The Member will be aware that I must balance finely the need to be careful that we do not spread the disease — the virus is still present among the sheep flock — with the need to alleviate the plight of farmers. I recognise that some farmers are in a difficult situation because the markets are closed, and there are no farm-to-farm sales either.
I am keeping the situation under review. Every day that I come into the Department, I ask for an update on the situation, including advice from the vets on whether further movements are possible. However, whatever I do, my priority is not to risk a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore I am aware of it; I am sympathetic to it, and I will keep it under review.

Mr Mick Murphy: Will the Minister tell the House when the markets are likely to be reopened? Farmers need a proper pricing of their stock.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development closed the markets originally. They are now being closed under an EU Directive. I am not in a position to give a date for reopening, because this is a matter for the European Commission. I know that it is a problem. Apart from the problem that mart closures create for farmers, it also creates a huge problem for the marts themselves in that they may be put out of business.
I suspect that there will be other easements before the reopening of marts takes place, because that will mean that cattle, sheep and other animals will be mixing together. I have to say — off the top of my head and without veterinary advice on the matter — that reopening will be well down the line.

Decommissioning Scheme for Fishermen

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline when she will make an announcement on a decommissioning scheme for fishermen and to make a statement.
(AQO1328/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The pursuit of a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme is a high priority, and work is continuing on its development. When I met with the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee recently, we discussed a draft scheme based on a tendering system by vessel owners for the disposal of their fishing vessels. The eligibility requirements would include that the vessel must be at least 12m long; it must have fished at least 75 days in each of the preceeding two years, and it must be at least 10 years old. Bids would be ranked according to vessel capacity units multiplied by the number of days at sea.
Based on the bids received, the Department would set separate strike prices for vessels considered to be mainly targeting white fish and nephrops. Successful applicants would receive a grant based on the strike price when their vessel was decommissioned.
The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has made some comments, which I wish to consider. Nevertheless, I intend to announce a scheme as soon as I obtain legal clearance.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for her reply, and I hope that the decommissioning scheme — a conservation measure — is implemented as quickly as possible. Against the backcloth of the terrible problem suffered by the farming community, the other conservation measure adopted by the common fisheries policy has gone unnoticed. Today is the last day of the six weeks of inactivity that the white fish fleet in Northern Ireland has suffered. Will the Minister consider the parallel situation between compensating farmers and other businesses in respect of Government-imposed restrictions and applying the same principle of effective Government — in the light of EU-imposed restrictions — to the white fish fleet industry, which has not been able to leave port for the past six weeks and has had no income?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The positions are not comparable. Some fishing has taken place outside the restricted areas; the boats have not been tied up. The situation is not the same, because fishermen hunt a wild quarry and can continue to do so even though they are restricted — until tomorrow, as the Member rightly says — from fishing for cod in certain areas of the Irish Sea and the North Channel.
Farmers whose livestock has been compulsorily slaughtered are compensated for the capital value of their animals and not for the consequential loss. As Members will be aware, I am finalising a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels that will compensate fishermen for their assets in the form of fishing vessels and associated licences. However, I have no plans to offer consequential compensation to the fishing industry.
In other words, a farmer who loses all his cattle has been deprived of the means of an income. Compensation is payable, because the Department has put him out of business for the time being. If a fishing vessel is decommissioned and the fisherman is put out of business, he would be compensated for that. However, as in the case of farmers, the fisherman would not be paid for consequential loss.

Mr Jim Shannon: Can the Minister give any indication of the number of fishermen who wish to take up the decommissioning scheme? Will the Minister pursue the repayment of grants given for boats in the past from those who are decommissioning? Will the Minister agree that it is very important that only a certain element of decommissioning should take place so that the core part of the industry and its business can be retained?

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is impossible to say how many fishermen will apply until the decommissioning scheme is up and running. I can tell you that £5million has been allocated for it, but I will have to wait until we get bids.
The acoustics on that side of the Chamber are very bad. I could not hear the second part of the question.

Mr Jim Shannon: The second part of the question was about grants. I understand that those who qualify for decommissioning have to pay back part of the grant that they received for their boats over the years. I am quite concerned about that, and I would like some clarification on the matter. Does the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development intend to ask for all that money, or part of it, to be paid back when the boat is decommissioned? It may leave those who have decommissioned with very little money.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not have any discretion with regard to paying back grants. Those are the regulations. One grant was paid to maintain a fishing vessel or to keep a fisherman in business, and the other will be paid to allow him to go out of business. It is not possible to give him the grant to decommission his vessel and at the same time to allow him to retain a grant intended to keep him in business.

Loughs Agency

Mr Alex Maskey: 4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline what work her Department is engaged in with the Government in the Republic of Ireland to ensure the Loughs Agency meets the objectives set for it by the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO1360/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development regularly engages with its co-sponsoring Department in the South, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, on matters relating to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The Departments are currently bringing forward parallel legislation to extend the functions of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (NorthernIreland) Order 1999. This legislation will provide the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission with powers to licence and to develop aquaculture in the Foyle and Carlingford areas.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development also works closely with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources on various operational matters relating to the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The Departments ensure that the agency has sufficient funding and staff to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. My Department also engages with its co-sponsoring Department in the South on various Loughs Agency policy matters. I refer the Member to my earlier statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission which took place in Dublin on 6April 2001.

Mr Alex Maskey: I would like to have a clearer understanding of when the enabling legislation will be laid. In the light of the statement this morning it seems that many issues are outstanding. When will the enabling legislation be in place?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am very anxious to proceed with the legislation as soon as possible. There are some outstanding issues which my officials and the Dublin officials are attempting to resolve. NorthernIreland needs an appeals procedure to match that in the South. At present our appeals procedure allows an appeal from the aggrieved person who has been refused a licence. It does not allow an appeal from a third party who objected to the licence and whose objection was then rejected. We are looking at that part of the legislation and trying to resolve that. If you were to take a judicial review, complications would also arise due to the fact that the two different jurisdictions are involved in a North/South body. The answer to the Member’s question is that I am anxious to proceed as soon as possible and will do so as soon as these issues are resolved.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Farmers’ Losses)

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline her policy on compensation for losses sustained by farmers and rural businesses as a result of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1322/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Compensation is paid to owners of animals that have been affected by the disease, have been in contact with affected animals or have been exposed to the infection. It can also be paid for a limited range of materials — such as carcasses, fodder or feeding stock — that have been directly implicated as a disease risk. At the request of the Executive, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has set up an interdepartmental group to examine the economic impact of the foot-and-mouth crisis in Northern Ireland. This group, which will report to the Executive, is considering what practical measures might be feasible and appropriate to support those sectors affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, taking account of local circumstances.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for her response and her ongoing work in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, but I specifically ask her to look in greater detail at the issue of consequential loss. Take, for example, the case of livestock marts. They are not closed because they have no customers but because of an edict issued by the Minister herself and subsequently backed by Brussels. Farm businesses, which have been encouraged to diversify by the Minister’s Department, are further examples. Their suffering is, in some senses, even worse than that of traditional farms on their own. If it is possible for the Scottish and Welsh Executives to take some action on consequential compensation, is it not also possible for it to happen here?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware — as, I am sure, are the Members — that consequential loss is a very difficult issue. Pinpointing the assistance necessary for the different sectors and areas is extremely difficult. GB and the Republic of Ireland are likewise facing a tough time in defining where any support might be given.
There is a hierarchy of need that has to be addressed. There are businesses, such as the marts, which have been totally closed down. There are businesses that have not been closed down but that have suffered greatly with a substantial loss of income. There are resource implications in any decision, and it would be a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel to make an assessment and come to a view on what would be possible. That is why the Executive are looking at the issue of consequential loss.
I am very much aware of the issues raised by Mr Ford, particularly in the area of rural development, where people have been getting businesses off the ground. It is an extremely difficult area to deal with, and I can only say that the Executive are looking at several options. I will not go through them all now, but we have considered areas such as rates, small firm loan guarantees and revenue. I am sure that those were covered earlier by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

Mr Oliver Gibson: My question fits somewhere into the "hierarchy of need" that the Minister mentioned. Does the Minister have any plans to give financial aid to farmers whose breeding stock has had to be slaughtered as a result of the ban on movement and sales?

Ms Brid Rodgers: That question comes into the area of consequential loss. I recognise that this is an extremely difficult situation for farmers whose breeding stock has been slaughtered. My departmental advisers have been in touch with all the farmers whose stock has been culled and are advising them on how the situation should be tackled. In relation to consequential compensation, however, I am afraid that my answer has to remain the same as before, except to say that advice will be available to farmers on finance and on how to get their businesses up and going again.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In relation to consequential loss, farmers have so far taken severe losses, and they are now expected to pay vets for visits so that their livestock can be moved from their premises for grazing. I am unsure whether that is being paid for in Britain or whether farmers here are being asked to pay for that separately. It is a consequential cost, so I ask the Minister whether that can be taken into account and farmers given compensation for that loss.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has decided to shoulder some of the burden of the veterinary certification costs involved in issuing movement licences. This is not happening in relation to all licences, but I am seeking clarification on that matter. I will look urgently at providing a similar facility in Northern Ireland, but that has public expenditure implications, and I need to be sure that it is justified and affordable. This will take time, and in the meantime, farmers are responsible for paying for any veterinary certification that they require.
This is a difficult situation, not just for the farming community, but for many other sectors. There is a price tag and, unfortunately, we do not have a bottomless pit of money. I sympathise and understand that the situation is difficult for farmers. Allowing some movement was an easement for the farmers, but now I have the problem of paying for the licences.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Rate Relief for Businesses)

Mr Seamus Close: 6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail discussions she has had with the Minister of Finance and Personnel regarding rate relief for businesses that have suffered consequential losses as a result of foot-and-mouth disease.
(AQO1321/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have raised the issue of rate relief with the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I understand that any changes to the existing rating system would require primary legislation, and that would take some time to achieve.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for that brief reply. I understand that a rate deferment scheme has been considered and discussed by the interdepartmental co-ordinating group. Can the Minister give more information to the House on that? In talking about consequential loss and the width to which it extends, even into the industrial sector, does she accept the broad principle that there is a need for a hardship package for Northern Ireland and that it should be paid for from the contingency fund?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The response to the Member’s question is a matter for the Minister of Finance and Personnel, not for myself. I agree with what has been said about the hardship being suffered and about the contingency fund. We will be making a very strong case for the contingency fund to be used. At a meeting some time ago in Downing Street with the Prime Minister I flagged up the point that it will be very difficult for the Northern Ireland block to cope with all of the expenditure that is arising. I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will also be making a strong case on our behalf for the contingency fund to be used.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Minister said earlier that the European Union had banned the livestock marts from carrying out their business. Has the Minister contacted the European Union to ask it to support consequential compensation for the livestock marts?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have not been in touch with the European Union on that specific issue. I hope that the European Union will be making a contribution towards some of our expenditure. However, in relation to contacting the European Commission, the Member will be aware that, as Northern Ireland is not a member state, any contact would be a national matter and would be dealt with by the UK Minister.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease ("Fortress Island" Approach)

Ms Michelle Gildernew: 7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail what action can be taken to develop a "fortress island" approach to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease from Great Britain or elsewhere in future.
(AQO1341/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I recognise that tackling foot-and-mouth disease is an all-island issue, and that is why I have had frequent discussions with Joe Walsh, both through the North/South Ministerial Council and bilaterally. There is also constant liaison at official level. Any attempt to develop such an approach must obviously focus on the points of entry from GB, where the disease is rampant.
We have controls in place at all ports and airports, and these arrangements are kept under constant review. We have vehicle disinfectant facilities at all ports, and these have been upgraded by installing mechanical facilities to increase the efficiency of the operations. We also have facilities available at all ports and airports for misting people with disinfectant. People have been are advised of the existence of those facilities and their availability for use on a voluntary basis.
I restate my strongly held view that the front line of defence lies with the farmers themselves. We can do whatever is possible at Government level, but each farmer in Northern Ireland has a personal responsibility to act to protect his or her own farm and thereby contribute to the overall objective of beating the disease.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given the nature of this disease, the fact that it can be carried by birds and wildlife and that our rivers and lakes cross the border, could more be done by looking at an all-Ireland policy on animal health? Should more work have been done with Joe Walsh, and should the Minister not have taken more advice from officials in Dublin rather than those in London?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Ms Gildernew that I do not take advice from London or Dublin. I take advice from my officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. On the issue of an animal health strategy, I inform Ms Gildernew that as early as November of last year, at a North/South Ministerial Council with Joe Walsh, we decided to begin the process of bringing forward a joint animal health strategy for the island of Ireland. Our officials have been working on that fortuitously, because the foot-and-mouth crisis has shown that this is an all-Ireland issue, as the Member pointed out. Bugs and viruses do not recognise borders, and streams and mountains cross the border. The fact that we recognised that some months before we were faced with this problem indicates that we were thinking along the right lines even before the crisis erupted.

Mr George Savage: There is a matter of concern. Prior to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease a number of farmers were wiped out by brucellosis in their livestock. There seems to be disparity between the amount of money that they got in compensation for their cattle and the compensation being paid to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease. This is a very big problem. When both sets of farmers are allowed to restock, they will all be competing, but not on a level playing field, given the differences in compensation.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The compensation for brucellosis and for foot-and-mouth disease has always been the same. That is the market value, as assessed by our valuers, and a farmer who is not happy with the valuation that is offered has a right to independent valuation. That has always been the position. Many farmers have gone for independent valuation, and I am aware of one case, at least, in which the independent valuation was lower than ours.

Assembly Commission

Assembly Use of Fair Trade Goods

Mr David Ford: 1. asked the Assembly Commission what plans there are for increasing the range of fair trade goods used in the Assembly.
(AQO1325/00)

Mr Jim Wells: The Assembly Commission and the Catering and Functions Committee have been actively exploring ways of promoting fair trade goods in the Assembly. We have been working closely with War on Want, which is the leading fair trade campaigner in Northern Ireland. The Commission has also recently re-let the catering contract that commits Mount Charles to purchase fair trade goods where possible. Mount Charles has already been successful in sourcing fair trade sugar and coffee and will, it is to be hoped, be able to purchase fair trade tea in the near future.
Members may be aware that a very successful photocall was held in the Great Hall to promote the fair trade campaign. It involved members of the Commission, the Catering and Functions Committee, representatives from War on Want, Mount Charles and the Tear Fund group from Queen’s University.
War on Want has been invited to provide an exhibition in Parliament Buildings, commencing today, to promote the fair trade principles among Members and staff. It is being held at the east staircase on the first floor and will provide Members with an opportunity to view the range of products available and learn more about the fair trade concept.

Mr David Ford: I applaud the actions of the Commission and Mount Charles in promoting fair trade so far. Mr Wells referred to the exhibition, which I trust Members will visit during the course of its time here.
As fair trade is clearly the policy of the Assembly Commission, is it right that such an exhibition should be tucked away in a rarely-visited corner of the building? Would it not be better if, tomorrow, it were relocated either in the Great Hall or in the canteen, where it would be seen by more people, and help spread the message that the Commission believes in?

Mr Jim Wells: The Member is absolutely correct — the Commission, as individuals, and as a body, are committed to the principles of fair trade. At its meeting on 23 October 2000 the Assembly Commission agreed that the first floor area of the east staircase could be used for exhibitions lasting up to two weeks. The designated areas provide sufficient space for a variety of different types of exhibitions without compromising the efficient functioning of the building.
Mr Ford will be aware that there are many demands on space in the building. The Commission has decided that this is the best area for exhibitions. Other events and have taken place there, and organisations have had very successful exhibitions.

Assembly (Recruitment of Staff)

Mr Conor Murphy: 2. asked the Assembly Commission to detail what methodology has been put in place for weighing up Civil Service experience and non-Civil Service experience (for example academic, research, policy, political activity) to ensure equality in the recruitment of staff to the Assembly Secretariat.
(AQO1344/00)

Mr Jim Wells: The Assembly Commission — in taking forward what is a very substantial recruitment programme — has adopted the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. That principle is being applied to all Assembly recruitment competitions, and adherence to the principle maintains the integrity of the Assembly and cultivates an environment where applicants for Assembly posts will be confident that they will be treated fairly and equally.
All job requirements for Assembly posts are set and clearly defined by the selection panel before jobs are advertised. Application forms are designed to seek only information relevant to the assessment of candidates against the criteria specified for the job.
In determining the job requirements of each post to be advertised, the assessment panel does not — and I repeat — does not consider how potential applicants have gained the requirements being sought. Only those applicants who fully meet the stipulated job requirements are deemed eligible for participation in the recruitment competition.
I assure the Member that the requirements stipulated for all publicly advertised Assembly posts, be they academic qualfications, periods of relevant experience, or both, are entirely job-related and considered essential for the job.
All members of the selection panel — including members of the Assembly Commission, who, on a number of occasions, have been on selection panels themselves — have received criteria-based interviewing and equal opportunities training. Selection panels comprise male and female representatives from more than one community background.

Mr Conor Murphy: My remarks are not in any way intended to be a slight on Civil Service or current Assembly staff. However, does the Assembly Commission agree that, in order to deliver the new beginning that the Belfast Agreement heralds, it should enourage applicants from as wide a range of people as possible to ensure that it is not just people with a Civil Service background who are working in this Building?
To have a broad approach and to enhance the new beginning that we are trying to create, it would benefit the Assembly staff and the Secretariat if we could draw people from as wide a variety of backgrounds as possible. Recruitment and interviewing measures should not, therefore, be seen as skewed to those who have a Civil Service background.

Mr Jim Wells: That is exactly what the Commission has achieved. Over half of the 98 staff appointed have been non-civil servants. Only 46 have been civil servants. Fifty-one per cent of applicants were Protestants, 43% were Catholics; 51% were female, and 49% were male. Those figures are very representative of the travel-to-work area for the Building, and I am confident that the Assembly Commission has carried out its duties and selection in a very fair and even-handed manner.

Assembly (Recruitment of Staff): Proportion of Civil Servants

Ms Michelle Gildernew: 3. asked the Assembly Commission to detail (a) the number of civil servants who have been successful in external competition for appointment to the Assembly Secretariat and (b) what proportion of all recruitment to the Assembly Secretariat has come from the Civil Service.
(AQO1362/00)

Mr Jim Wells: Forty-six civil servants have been successful in obtaining appointments to the Assembly secretariat following external competition. To date, 47% of those recruited to the Assembly through external competition have been civil servants.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: In the light of the previous question from my Colleague, Mr Conor Murphy, I would like an assurance that openness and accountability are the key themes in recruitment. Are those people who are seconded from other parts of the Civil Service treated with parity when employed in the Assembly secretariat?

Mr Jim Wells: I can give an assurance that the Assembly Commission has been entirely fair in all its dealings in the appointment of staff. All our positions are advertised in the the three local newspapers, the ‘Irish News’, the ‘News Letter’ and the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. When the Commission deems it to be necessary, we also advertise in papers that circulate in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. We are confident, having analysed statistics on those who are applying, that we are attracting applications from the widest possible section of society.
We have also been successful in attracting 53% of applicants from outside the Civil Service. That percentage includes people who have worked for district councils, the Housing Executive and other statutory agencies. I can give a personal assurance, as well as an assurance on behalf of the Commission, that we have been scrupulously fair in our implementation of the fair employment guidelines in all recruitment activities since the Assembly was founded.

Mr Roy Beggs: There is a lot of benefit to be had from bringing in skills from areas outside the Civil Service, such as the public sector and other local government agencies. However, does the Commission agree that if it excludes civil servants with relevant experience, it will be in breach of equality legislation?

Mr Jim Wells: That is a fundamental point. If we said that we would not accept applications from civil servants, we would be in contravention of all of the relevant legislation. Obviously, civil servants are attracted to posts in the Assembly, because they can seek secondment from their Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments and return if they wish. That is clearly one of the reasons why so many civil servants have applied. However, having applied, they are treated in exactly the same way as any other applicants. The figures show that, despite the attraction of secondment, over half of the — very good — staff that we have appointed have come from outside the Civil Service. If the view that there is a bias in favour of civil servants is inherent in this question, the statistics show that that is not the case.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are no further questions to the Assembly Commission.

Children’s Commissioner Bill: First Stage

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you consider it in order for a private Member’s Bill calling for a children’s commissioner to be discussed while the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Committee of the Centre are carrying out consultation processes on the appointment of a children’s commissioner? Will you refer the matter to the Business Committee and the Committee on Procedures for investigation?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is a matter for the Business Committee to decide, and I will ask it to discuss that at the meeting tomorrow.

Ms Jane Morrice: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 14/00] to provide for the establishment of a children’s commissioner to promote the rights and interests of children in Northern Ireland; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Conservation on the Black Mountain

Mr Gerry Adams: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an seans labhairt ar cheist phráinneach chaomhnú an tSléibhe Dhuibh in iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Tá súil agam go n-inseoidh an tAire dúinn i ndiaidh na díospóireachta seo go bhfuil rún aige deireadh a chur le cairéalacht cloch ansin. Ta an Sliabh Dubh agus cnoic Bhéal Feirste an-tábhachtach do mhuintir Bhéal Feirste.
Tá Béal Feirste suite idir abhantrach an Lagáin ar thaobh amháin agus cnoic Ard Mhic Neasca ar an taobh eile. Tá cnoic Bhéal Feirste ina slabhra ó chnoc Colin go cnoc Carnmoney, agus tá an Sliabh Dubh ina nasc thábhachtach sa slabhra sin.
Bheirim cuireadh anois don Aire siúil liom ar an Sliabh Dubh go bhfeiceann sé dó féin na gáibéil agus na beanna a dhéanann suas an cairéal.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the urgent need to conserve the Black Mountain. It is essential that the Assembly support the preservation of the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills. I invite the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, to visit the Black Mountain with me to see, at first hand, the gaping chasm and sheer cliffs that make up the quarry, and to understand why it is vital that his Department takes the necessary steps to end quarrying. I intend, in due course, to invite the Environment Committee to examine the important issue. I hope that today’s discussion will be informative and signal a beginning of the end for quarrying on the Black Mountain and real moves towards preserving the Belfast hills.
The Black Mountain and the Belfast hills are central to the identity of Belfast. In common with many Irish cities, Belfast is changing. With that change it is losing its uniqueness. New developments which are central to regeneration are replacing older landmarks; Belfast risks losing its character. What remains unique to the city is its magnificent setting — a city rising up from the Lagan basin, and framed by the Belfast and Holywood hills. The Belfast hills form a chain stretching from Colin Mountain to Carnmoney Hill, and the Black Mountain is a vital link in that chain. These hills have watched Belfast grow. They have acted as a meeting place for the United Irishmen; the British Army occupied them; they have witnessed all our history. They have acted as a playground for generations, and they should be the common property of all our people.
The hills are a legacy that we have inherited, and it is our responsibility to conserve them for our children. That was recognised by the Planning Service as long ago as 1945 when, in planning proposals for the Belfast area, it recommended the preservation of the hills. Similar aspirations have been voiced in every subsequent Belfast planning document. However, the aspirations of the documents have never been fully realised. Developments are encroaching on to the hills, and significant quarrying is encouraged on the Black Mountain. Therefore, there is a need to implement legislation to end the quarrying and to save the hills.
Sinn Féin and I both welcome the establishment of the Belfast Hills Trust. We have called consistently for the setting up of a regional park across all the Belfast hills. Such a park, based on legislation, and fully funded, would be the best way of securing the long-term future of our hills.
Every year 500,000 tonnes of stone are removed from the Black Mountain. Two thousand five hundred tonnes are removed every day. Last year, the Minister stated that there was at least 20 years’ worth of stone extraction left on the mountain. This projection comes after 12 years of quarrying. By the end of the timescale allowed in the planning permission, in 32 years at least 16 million tonnes will have been extracted.
Fuair muid na cnoic seo mar oidhreacht nádúrtha an dúchais, agus tá freagracht orainn anois iad a chaomhnú dár gcuid páistí.
I wonder, as do many other people who live close to the mountain, if there will be a mountain there at all in twenty years’ time. I ask the Minister if this would be allowed to happen to any other landmark in any other constituency. Would the Minister allow the full-scale draining of the Fermanagh loughs, the destruction of the Giant’s Causeway or the demolition of Navan Fort?
As well as the destruction of the mountain, local communities have to endure 25 large trucks making return journeys every day to and from the quarry. That is 50 journeys through a community with the highest level of road traffic accidents in the Six Counties. There are also reports of increased pollution, with dust blowing off the quarry into neighbouring communities.
To add insult to this the construction industry itself, which is the market for quarried stone, can use recycled aggregate. The industry is not dependent on stone quarry from the Black Mountain. While all this goes on, Belfast is losing a vital piece of our environmental heritage and gaining increased pollution and heavy traffic, borne, in the main, by the people of west Belfast.
The small number of jobs created on the site is not sustainable. Some day the stone will be gone, and with it the jobs. However, the number of jobs lost could be matched and added to by way of restoration work, conservation, education and tourism on the mountain. A single project by the community of the upper Springfield could create 45 jobs on the site immediately.
In March of this year, the Minister informed my office that the Department is taking no steps to end quarrying on the Black Mountain. This approach is short-sighted and wrong and undermines the current consultation on the Belfast metropolitan area plan. I am concerned that this plan will join the growing list of planning documents that have failed to safeguard the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills.
Ba chóir don Aire a bheartú ar cé acu ba mhaith leis bheith freagrach as an Sliabh Dubh a shábháil nó bheith ina fhear ar scrios a neamart é.
We need to move conservation from aspiration to action. We need the Department to implement legislation to conserve the Belfast hills. We need an immediate end to the quarrying, and we need to begin work to redress the damage done. Of course, there will be a cost for all this. However, the cost is justified, as it will save a valued asset for future generations.
The Minister and the Department have the ability to devise measures to safeguard the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills. As I said in Irish, he needs to decide if he will be remembered as the man who saved the Black Mountain or as someone who made a mountain into a molehill.
I urge the Minister to direct his Department to investigate ways to end the quarrying and to send a signal out today that he will act as a guardian of the environment.
In closing, let me bring you back to Navan Fort. In 1986, it too was threatened by quarrying. The then British Minister, Richard Needham, moved to save the site by invoking article 22 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, to overrule public inquiry commission findings concerning an application to extend quarrying at that site.
Ba mhaith liom an tAire ordú a thabhairt dá Roinn dóigh a fhiosrú le deireadh a chur leis an chairéalacht agus a chruthú go ndéanfaidh sé beart mar choimirceoir na timpeallachta.
As I am sure the Minister is a fair man, I ask him to come with me to the site to see for himself the damage that is being done. I ask him to use his power to save the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills, on behalf of the people of Belfast and this island. Go raibh mile maith agaibh.

Dr Ian Adamson: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Sadly, in our time, the Black Mountain area has come to be considered as perhaps the last resting place of several of the disappeared. The Black Mountain and the Belfast hills were anciently the borderline between the Dálaradia people and the ancient British Cruthin kingdom of Dálaradia. The historical and cultural legacy of Dálaradia, a legacy that belongs in equal measure to both our communities — for in essence they are the same community — was very much the product of a close interrelationship between all the peoples of the British Isles, using the term "British" in its most ancient form and sense.
Such an interrelationship is particularly evident in Dál Riada’s rich literary output, a fact also noted by Seamus Heaney in the introduction to his translation of ‘Buile Suibhne’, when he said
"It is possible … to dwell upon Sweeney’s easy sense of cultural affinity with both western Scotland and southern Ireland as exemplary for all men and women in contemporary Ulster."
Despite the exclusiveness with which many of our community have defensively surrounded their respective traditions of Britishness and Irishness, I take great encouragement from the efforts being made at the grassroots to explore the commonality of our historical and cultural heritage.
In particular I note the work undertaken by the Farset Youth and Community Project, which lies beneath the Black Mountain in the Upper Springfield Road area, and with which I have had a long association. Farset continues to involve young people from both sides of the divide in an exploration of their shared inheritance — the sacrifice at the Battle of the Somme, the story of the Titanic, the idealism of United Irishman, Jemmy Hope, the European dimension bequeathed to us by Columbanus, the preservation of Ulster Gaelic and Ulster Scots and many other equally significant facets.
Farset is appropriately sited on the Upper Springfield Road to explore this inheritance, not simply because the citizens of Belfast are the predominant inheritors of ancient Dálaradia and the Black Mountain interface, but because its location provides ample evidence of the continuity to which I have referred.
Within the project’s catchment area flows the River Farset from which the project, and Belfast, takes its name. Close to the river once stood an old church, mentioned in a document of 1306 as the "Ecclesia Alba", or White Church. The place name for this old church, An tSeanchill, was first documented in the seventeenth century and has been anglicised as Shankill. The old church has long since gone, but as Richard S J Clarke has noted
"Its graveyard continued to be used for burial for succeeding generations, maintaining a tradition established perhaps a thousand years earlier."
When Alderman Hugh Smyth was Mayor of Belfast, I had the great privilege of accompanying him to the National Museum in Dublin to see three fragments from a ninth-century crozier found in the graveyard. These are perhaps the oldest fragments of a crozier ever found in the vicinity of the north of Ireland. Along with a bullaun stone also found in the graveyard and now mounted near to the door of the adjoining St Matthew’s Church, we have evidence of pre-Norman ecclesiastical activity in Belfast.
Equally significant, the medieval parish of Shankill not only embraced the Falls as one of its native divisions but was also directly linked to the monastery at Bangor. A church document of 1615 lists the chapel of Cromoge, located within the parish of Shankill, as one of the six altarages or parochial chapels, belonging to the monastery of Bangor, where oblations might be presented and dues paid.
Tragically for all of us, to many people the words "Shankill" and "Falls" are now synonymous with a deep-rooted communal division, which some claim is unbridgeable. Just as both districts were once embraced in one parish, it is my earnest hope that a proper evaluation of our historical and cultural inheritance will reveal the full extent to which that inheritance has also been a shared one.
I am sad to report that the Farset International Hostel, formulated by Mr Jackie Hewitt of Farset, does not seem to be going ahead. That is a great loss, not only to the people of west Belfast but to the whole of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Something like that would have been a great adjunct to the development of the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills. I agree that this is an extremely important area.

Sir John Gorman: Thank you, Dr Adamson. I was afraid that you were straying a little bit, especially when you got to my constituency in Bangor, but I see the connection.

Mr Alex Attwood: Both Mr Gerry Adams and Dr Ian Adamson have powerfully outlined the cultural, environmental and wider appeal and relevance of the Black Mountain to the citizens of Belfast and beyond. People, when they come to Belfast, often comment on the Belfast hills — Castlereagh, Cavehill and the Black Mountain. Given the natural asset that we enjoy, there is no more compelling environmental argument than to try to save the Black Mountain from further ravages. Both Ian Adamson and Gerry Adams would agree that, while we may articulate a view on the Floor of the Chamber today, it is the Aidan Creans, the Terry Enrights, the Tim Duffys and the late Eileen Fultons who have been in the vanguard in trying to enhance the natural environment, particularly in west Belfast, whether it is Colin Glen, the Black Mountain or the Bog Meadows.
The Minister’s Department should be mindful of other developments on the natural landscape in west Belfast when it comes to directing funds and resources and developing a strategic approach to building the environment in west Belfast. A group is to be set up in the next 10 days to enhance the Colin Glen area and the Glen River’s contribution to the environment of west Belfast. When that cross-community and cross-environmental group makes proposals, I trust that the Department and the Minister will hear what people say with regard to enhancing the environment in west Belfast.
Similarly, in the near future, the Environment and Heritage Service will publish a response to the Northern Ireland landscape character assessment series in which it talks about landscape character and the protection of the environment in Northern Ireland in general. I urge the Minister to respond positively to those recommendations.
This debate is primarily about the Black Mountain, and I want to ask the Minister about that. I have several questions. There are increasing concerns about the future of the Black Mountain and the future intentions of the quarry owners themselves. Gerry Adams correctly pointed out that the quarry owners recently indicated that there are 20 years’ worth of basalt reserves yet to be quarried in the Black Mountain. I heard in 1992, when the then Minister of the Environment, Richard Needham, said that it was his understanding that at that time there were 20 years’ worth of quarrying reserves. Mr Needham’s civil servants at that time did not agree with the Minister. They indicated that there were only between eight and 15 years’ reserves. Ten years later we are told — formally and on the record — that there are at least 20 years’ reserves. The Minister confirmed that in a written answer to me in January 2000, when he indicated that the quarry operator, at present rates of extraction, understands that he has sufficient reserves to carry operations forward for at least 20 years.
If that were the only fact, it might be understandable. However, the plot thickens. Since then, the permanent secretary and the Minister have been asked for an assessment of the remaining mineral reserves in the quarry — an assessment that the quarry owners were undertaking. In September 2000, the Minister confirmed in writing that
"White Mountain Quarries Ltd has confirmed that its assessment of the remaining mineral reserves of the quarry is now almost complete, and it hopes to be in a position to let the Department have information on this within the next few weeks."
That was in September 2000. In January 2001, the Minister again wrote to me, apologising for not replying sooner. He said that his officials had had difficulty in contacting White Mountain Quarries. He added that the company was not prepared to release the information requested, as they regarded it as commercially sensitive. In 1992, the Government and the quarry owners said that they had at least 20 years’ worth of reserves. In 2000, the quarry owners said that they had at least that. However, in 2001 the quarry owners are not prepared to release the information requested by the Government, as they regard it as commercially sensitive.
The people of west Belfast — especially those that I named earlier — ask a simple question. How is it that an assessment made 10 years ago stated that there were 20 years’ worth of reserves? How is it that a similar assessment was made last year, and how is it that this year that company is no longer prepared to share what it says is commercially sensitive information?
This also raises a wider issue about who governs the North. A large quarry is having an immense environmental impact on west Belfast — all of it adverse. How is it that a private company that is granted planning permission by the state is not prepared to share information with the Government and the wider community that it was prepared to share earlier? Legitimate questions are being asked about the long-term prospects of the quarry. Is it not the case that — far from 20 years’ worth — there are 30, 40 or more years’ worth of reserves? In that context, Members can understand the concern about the long-term consequences for the mountain.
In responding to environmental need, not just in west Belfast and the Black Mountain — I also mentioned the Colin Glen proposals — it is also time for the Government to assert control over what White Mountain Quarries is doing, not just in respect of quarry reserves, where there is ambiguity, uncertainty and concern, but also in ensuring that the 19 conditions laid down when the quarry originally got planning permission in the early 1980s are strictly and fully enforced. The experience of 10 years ago was that planning conditions were routinely not enforced in respect of this quarry, particularly those relating to landscaping, planting of trees, the removal of plant from the front of the mountain and the damage to the top of the mountain.
I agree with Gerry Adams that the Government should assert authority over what is happening in the Black Mountain. Unless there is clarity about how many years’ worth of reserves there is and how many more years of destruction there will be, the Social Development Committee would be advised to follow the model adopted by the Regional Development Committee in respect of the Port of Belfast and initiate a formal inquiry into what has happened to the Black Mountain over the last 20 years.
The purpose of that inquiry would be to mitigate the adverse impact of the quarrying to date; to further protect and develop the mountain as a civic amenity; to consider the closure of quarrying operations on the mountain as a matter of urgency; to review the history of planning enforcement conditions and how the situation has developed generally; to determine such other action as is deemed necessary, including moving the quarry to a more environmentally suitable site; and to explore European funding mechanisms to have the quarry closed down.
The Minister should respond, or be seen to respond, to those concerns, on which he has been on notice over the last year. If he does not, it is the intention of the SDLP and, I am sure, other parties to prevail upon the Social Development Committee to initiate an inquiry into how the situation arose and to call people to account for what has happened.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a leasCheann Comhairle. I support my Colleague Mr Adams’s motion, which is timely and appropriate. I was going to say, tongue in cheek, that Dr Adamson stole all my lines. You are quite right, leasCheann Comhairle, when you say that he used poetic licence, but the Black Mountain is a very poetic place for Belfast people in particular and, I am sure, for those who come from beyond Belfast.
It has a special place in the lives of the people in Belfast, particularly those in west Belfast. For those of us who grew up in Belfast 60 years ago, a day out was on Cavehill or the Black Mountain. It is a place that has been well versed in song — the McPeakes sang about it in their song ‘Belfast’. The words include "coming home to your Black Mountain, Cavehill and River Lagan". The Black Mountain is as much a part of Belfast as the River Lagan, Cavehill and the city hall. It is something special to the lives of people of Belfast.
As Belfast grew industrially and expanded socially, people had nowhere to escape to but to Cavehill or the Black Mountain. As Mr Adams said, all the industrialisation and quarrying over the years — uncontrolled quarrying, let me say — has despoiled and left an unsightly mark. I am sure that the Minister — a Fermanagh man, proud of the lakes and countryside of Fermanagh — would not want to see an amenity like the Black Mountain’s being further despoiled for the sake of profit or more industrialisation. The Minister should remember that Belfast needs an attraction — it needs its Black Mountain. You can stand practically anywhere in Belfast and see it. You can see why it was called the Black Mountain. It has an image of darkness and beauty and a special appeal for the people of Belfast and beyond. We have the green Glens of Antrim, and I ask the Minister to ensure we have the Black Mountain for Belfast.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate Mr Adams for bringing this most important motion to the Assembly. Not in recent times, but certainly over many years, I have been involved in this subject. I had many meetings with Ministers going away back — Richard Needham’s name has come up several times.
I put myself in the same bracket as Mr J Kelly, when it comes to my childhood. From Bellevue, and I am not talking about the zoo, across the upper Shankill and upper Springfield, the hills of Belfast are a place of great beauty and culture, steeped in the history of people of both traditions.
I recall asking Richard Needham to go onto the mountainside, which he did. He arrived in a helicopter. I remember his expressing great anger about the situation — some people might wonder whether it was genuine. He had a background in quarrying. The real sin here was not committed by him or by his people at that time, but long before that, when planning permission was given. I do not recall the name of the owner of White Mountain then — it was not the present owners. Planning permission was given to dig that quarry, and that was wrong from every point of view. It was morally wrong and wrong in terms of all people from both traditions.
Other things happened at that time, and I suppose there is no point in our going back in time and pointing fingers. Close to the mountains is the Monagh bypass, which is really a motorway. If you asked people or senior civil servants today why the Monagh bypass suddenly stopped at the mountainside — that is going back some years ago — many people would say that it is just as well, because the mountains are still there. However, there were plans to build a motorway cutting right through there and to save the hills all around it. That would have been a place of great beauty. I do not make the argument for motorways; I simply say that decisions were taken to build a motorway, and then all of a sudden it was stopped. It is difficult to find out precisely why that happened.
As Alex Attwood said, there was an inquiry in respect of the hills, but I have found it difficult, during my time as MP for West Belfast, to find out details of that original inquiry, which was buried. I did get some details, but they were not very helpful. I recall speaking on several occasions about this issue to the then Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew. He spoke once about the beauty of the Belfast hills from upper Springfield right across the upper Shankill, and he totally agreed with me that something could be done with the Belfast hills for the sake of the people.
It is important to remember that we are talking about west Belfast, north Belfast, Lagan Valley, south Antrim, all of Belfast; in fact, it is Northern Ireland that we are talking about. The hills are truly beautiful in terms of our cultural history, bird life and animal life. All the important points have already been made — my Colleague Alex Attwood covered the main ones. Where do we go from here? This is a shared inheritance, belonging to all of us. I believe that at one stage the Northern Ireland Office was toying with the idea of doing something about it. I think that they were considering whether it would be a good thing to do from a political standpoint, in terms of peace between two traditions. They were toying with it, but it never went any further than that.
Many organisations have been involved with the preservation of the mountainside, and Mr Attwood mentioned some of the people — Aidan Crean and Terry Enwright are very much to the fore in this. However, we are now concerned about the mental and physical health of all our people and about their environment.
The Minister is a very fair person, and I would like him to go to the mountainside some time with an MP, or with any of us — it does not matter with whom he goes; it is important that he goes — and that he and his people make an assessment, not just of west Belfast, but of all of the hills, and consider in what way they could be used for the good of all people.
I understand that to buy off White Mountain Quarries Ltd would cost a substantial amount of money, because planning permission was given to them — although very wrongfully given — and apparently to undo that would be very expensive. I made the point earlier that what could be done was being considered, and one of the ideas was to buy the mountain back for the people over a number of years using the funds that went to Making Belfast Work (MBW) — but not on a direct payment, because there is not enough money for that.
This is a devolved Assembly; it is about the health, welfare and environment of our people. I support the shared inheritance that has been spoken of. There should be an inquiry. The Assembly and the Executive should give whatever support is necessary — financial or legislative — to give the mountainside back to the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Gerry Adams put forward the motion with the focus on his constituents in West Belfast. However, the Black Mountain impinges on at least two other constituencies — East Antrim, and my constituency, Lagan Valley. My constituents are as worried about the destruction of the Black Mountain as are the people in West Belfast.
There are several key facts relating to conservation on the Black Mountain; some have already been mentioned. There has been quarrying with planning permission since the early 1980s. Overhead photographs and the profile of the mountain show the enormous environmental destruction that has occurred over that time. Taking into account the destruction that has happened in the last 20 years, how much more will occur in the next 20 years or more? As Gerry Adams and others mentioned, there are indications that at least 20 years’ worth of reserves could still be gouged out of the mountain.
There are concerns that the Department of the Environment has not properly monitored the situation. There is evidence that the original planning conditions imposed in the 1980s were not monitored or enforced. In the 1990s the then Minister, Richard Needham, was required to intervene in order that the planning conditions could be introduced. Those included the need to plant trees in the front of the mountain to shield the site and to blend it in with the surrounding environment.
The community is rightly concerned that the original planning conditions have not been observed or enforced. To rectify the situation it is essential that the Assembly investigate how quarrying can be terminated. The Assembly must ensure that there is a maximum environmental restoration of the mountain and that there is adequate restoration of trees and plants in the area.
The Department of the Environment can take immediate action by adopting a comprehensive road cleansing policy in the area, and it could confirm that the optimum wheel-washing facilities are on site.
I acknowledge that there are employment repercussions. I ask the Minister if it would not be possible to relocate another basalt quarry and retain these jobs there. This matter should be referred to the Social Development Committee, and I support my Colleagues’ request for an inquiry.

Mr Gerry Adams: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Gabh mo leithscéal, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Dúirt mo chara John Ó Ceallaigh, nuair a bhí sé ag caint, gurbh é clann McPeake a cheol an t-amhrán ‘Béal Feirste’; ach ba é Barnbrack a cheol an t-amhrán sin.
For the historical record my friend, John Kelly, credited the McPeake family with the song ‘Belfast’; it was, in fact, Barnbrack.

Sir John Gorman: I am grateful that the Member clarified that.

Mr Sam Foster: I welcome the debate for many reasons, none more than it gives me the opportunity to provide explanations. I am a conservationist, and I do not want to despoil any territory anywhere. Mr Adams referred to beauty spots in the Province such as Lough Erne. We are all proud of the Province, but we must not allow ourselves to become too sanctimonious.
The countryside has been pockmarked for 30years by terrorist activity. It is to be regretted that we did not receive united condemnation of that fact at the time. We hope to rectify the utter destruction in our land. I want to assure everyone that I wish to conserve rather than to choose one area against another.
Although the title given to this Adjournment debate is "Conservation on the Black Mountain", it will be helpful if I begin my response by considering the Black Mountain in the context of the Belfast hills. Just before Easter I announced the publication by the Department of the Environment of the Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment 2000. On that occasion in Parliament Buildings I drew attention to the Belfast hills as being one of our most prominent and well-known landscape features and mentioned how they provided a magnificent backcloth to the city of Belfast. The report stated
"The basalt cliffs are a striking landmark …They have a wild, brutal, untamed character which contrasts with the familiar bustle of the city below."
The Department of the Environment recognises the importance of the Belfast hills, not only in providing a landscape setting for the north and west of the city, but also as a recreational resource of immense potential for all the people of Belfast and the visitors to Northern Ireland. I also recognise that many difficulties and challenges must be overcome if this potential is to be realised — not least the fact that the majority of land in the Belfast hills is privately owned farm land. The genuine concerns that landowners and farmers have regarding trespassing, vandalism and damage to property have to be addressed if we are to win the confidence of this important section of the local community.
I am conscious that pressure for Government action to protect the Belfast hills has been building for years. The zoning of the hills area as a regional park was proposed in the mid-1990s as a means of providing protection, public access and enjoyment. However, there was strong local opposition to this concept for the reasons that I have stated.
Pressure for action continued, and in 1998 a feasibility study on the Belfast hills was commissioned at the then Minister’s request by the Department’s Environment and Heritage Service on behalf of a consortium including the four local authorities for the hills and the charity Bryson House. This study identified continued lack of support, particularly from land owners, for the establishment of a regional park. Also it was felt that insufficient land was in public ownership to make the concept viable. The study instead recommended the setting up of a Belfast hills trust to provide a practical and integrated management mechanism for a smaller operational area of the hills running from the city limits to the back of the hills overlooking Belfast, Lisburn and Newtownabbey. This recommendation received widespread public support and much less opposition from local residents.
In 2000 the Department of the Environment established a working group which employed consultants to prepare a business plan for the proposed Belfast hills trust. The draft plan is now complete, but it is still awaiting final approval from some members of the working group. It will be presented shortly to potential funders in support of the case for the establishment of a Belfast hills trust.
The Black Mountain is seen as an important part of the Belfast hills. It has particular importance because of its visual prominence on the skyline and its closeness to a large population. I am fairly confident in saying that a strategic plan for its wide use would be a high priority for a hills trust. Such a trust would also be well placed to feed ideas and information on the sustainable management of the Belfast hills into the Belfast metropolitan area (BMA) plan process. The BMA plan will set out Government policy on development in the Belfast hills, including the Black Mountain. It will consider in detail the recreational potential of this area and how the Belfast hills should be protected and managed. I referred earlier to the challenge of reconciling the needs of farming with the aspirations of those who wish to use the hills for recreation. There are other legitimate activities taking place in the Belfast hills such as the quarry which has been referred to on the Black Mountain.
There is a long history of quarrying on the Black Mountain, dating back to the mid-nineteenth century. Growth for most of this period was intermittent, but it took off rapidly during the 1980s. In 1978 the Department of the Environment received a planning application from the current operators to develop 127acres of the mountain area for quarrying and ancillary use. The application was approved in July 1979.
Further applications were received in the mid-1980s and granted in 1988.
I have no hesitation in accepting the invitation to visit the Black Mountain and the quarry area. My diary secretary will be in contact to organise that.
I cannot answer for all the Administrations that were here before me. I have been asked once or twice when the quarry will close. Dates have been suggested, but all I can say is that it will happen when the reserves are exhausted. It will depend on the production processes of the operator and will be dictated by demand, not by the Department of the Environment.
I am asked why the Department does not close the quarry. The Department could initiate discontinuance action under article 39 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. That, however, might involve significant compensation to the operators. The Department would also have to justify taking action against that quarrying operation and not against others.
I have been asked whether the Department will grant further permission on the site. Any application would have to be considered on its merits and against prevailing plans and policies. It would be improper for me to say in this forum how my Department might assess any application.
Through the planning process, my Department has imposed strict limits on the extent of quarrying. Those restrictions were reinforced by the 1985 planning application, which contained a proposal to forfeit part of the area approved for extraction in 1979, for the purpose of preserving the skyline. I assure Members that my Department closely monitors those area limits, and they have now been reached. In that context, the visual appearance of the quarry should not now change significantly. However, the quarry can be deepened, within the limits imposed. That will have limited — if any — visual impact from outside the quarry.
I have read in the press that it is in my power to stop quarrying on Black Mountain at a stroke: that is not so. I am sure that there will be relief that I do not possess such draconian powers. I have the power to discontinue planning permissions, but exercising that power involves a lengthy process, with no cast-iron guarantee of success. If successful, my Department would also have to pay significant compensation to the quarry owners for the closure of their business, and, ultimately, that bill would have to be met by the taxpayer. The operators have valid planning permission to quarry on the Black Mountain, subject to conditions and until reserves have been exhausted. My Department has no powers to dictate deadlines for completing those operations. There are 250 quarrying operations throughout the Province. Do we want to make life difficult for those quarries as well? They are a necessary contribution to the economy of our Province.
I emphasise that my Department has imposed stringent conditions on planning permissions to protect, as far as possible, the visual amenity of the Black Mountain. Through that process and through discussion with the quarry owner, significant tidying-up and landscaping work has been undertaken along the southern edge of the quarry, above the Upper Springfield Road. The improvements include the relocation of quarry stockpiles and waste tips, the grading and seeding of frontage embankments and the planting of trees and shrubs. As a result, a considerable visual improvement has been achieved.
My Department is also responsible for the control of dust emissions from quarries through the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. I acknowledge that the operations of the Black Mountain quarry may, from time to time, cause dust and noise. I emphasise, however, that the quarry is regularly inspected by the Environment and Heritage Service to ensure that its operators are doing everything in their power to prevent dust and are meeting the conditions set out in the authorisation under the Order. Additionally, all complaints about dust are investigated within 24 hours of receipt.
The Department is committed to conserving and enhancing the environmental qualities of the Belfast hills, including the Black Mountain. I cannot turn the clock back to a pre-industrial Belfast, but I will use the powers and opportunities that I have to work for a better environment for local residents and visitors alike.
Adjourned at 5.04 pm.